Supreme Court Dissolves Marriage by Mutual Consent Under Article 142: Praveen Singh vs. Neelam Singh (2019)

LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the Supreme Court can dissolve a marriage by mutual consent by exercising its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, even after lower courts have declined to grant a divorce.
CASE TYPE: Family Law, Divorce.
Case Name: Praveen Singh Ramakant Bhadauriya vs. Neelam Praveen Singh Bhadauriya
[Judgment Date]: 1st May 2019

Can the Supreme Court use its extraordinary powers to dissolve a marriage when the parties have reached an amicable settlement, even after lower courts have refused to grant a divorce? The Supreme Court addressed this question in the case of Praveen Singh Ramakant Bhadauriya vs. Neelam Praveen Singh Bhadauriya. This case highlights the Court’s willingness to utilize its constitutional powers to provide complete justice and settle matrimonial disputes when both parties agree to part ways. The judgment was delivered by a bench comprising Justices R. Banumathi and S. Abdul Nazeer, with Justice R. Banumathi authoring the opinion.

Case Background

The appellant, Praveen Singh Ramakant Bhadauriya, and the respondent, Neelam Praveen Singh Bhadauriya, were married on 07 May 1998. They have a daughter, who was approximately 18 years old at the time of the judgment. Due to a strained relationship, the couple had been living separately for some time. The appellant-husband initiated divorce proceedings before the Family Court in Mumbai, which were later transferred to the Etawah District Court in Uttar Pradesh.

The Trial Court dismissed the divorce petition on 09 November 2009. The appellant’s appeal was subsequently dismissed by the District Court on 29 November 2012. The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad also dismissed the second appeal filed by the appellant-husband on 29 May 2013. Aggrieved by these decisions, the appellant approached the Supreme Court of India.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The appellant initially filed a suit for dissolution of marriage before the Family Court, Mumbai, which was later transferred to the Etawah District Court, Uttar Pradesh. The Trial Court dismissed the divorce petition on 09 November 2009. The District Court also dismissed the appeal on 29 November 2012. The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad dismissed the second appeal on 29 May 2013, upholding the decisions of the lower courts. The appellant then approached the Supreme Court of India.

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court invoked its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to dissolve the marriage. Article 142 states:
“The Supreme Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree or make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it, and any decree so passed or order so made shall be enforceable throughout the territory of India in such manner as may be prescribed by or under any law made by Parliament and, until provision in that behalf is so made, in such manner as the President may by order prescribe.”

This provision empowers the Supreme Court to issue orders necessary for complete justice, even if such orders deviate from existing laws. In this case, it allowed the Court to dissolve the marriage by mutual consent despite the lower courts’ refusal to grant a divorce.

Arguments

The arguments in this case were primarily focused on the settlement reached between the parties during mediation. The appellant-husband and the respondent-wife had agreed to dissolve their marriage by mutual consent. They presented a settlement agreement to the Supreme Court, requesting the Court to exercise its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to grant a divorce.

The key arguments were:

• The parties had reached an amicable settlement through mediation.
• The appellant agreed to pay Rs. 10,00,000 to the respondent as full and final settlement of all her claims.
• The appellant also agreed to pay Rs. 3,00,000 in the name of their daughter as a fixed deposit and an additional Rs. 1,00,000 at the time of her marriage.
• Both parties agreed to withdraw all pending cases between them.

Submissions of Parties

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not frame specific issues in the traditional sense. Instead, it considered the following:

• Whether the Court could exercise its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to dissolve the marriage by mutual consent, given the settlement between the parties.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The judgment does not cite any specific authorities or legal precedents. The Court’s decision is based on its constitutional power under Article 142 and the mutual consent of the parties.

Authorities Considered by the Court

Judgment

The Supreme Court, exercising its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, dissolved the marriage between the appellant and the respondent. The Court accepted the terms of the settlement agreement between the parties, which included:

• The appellant paying Rs. 10,00,000 to the respondent as full and final settlement.
• The appellant depositing Rs. 3,00,000 in the name of their daughter as a fixed deposit.
• The appellant paying an additional Rs. 1,00,000 at the time of their daughter’s marriage.
• Withdrawal of all pending cases between the parties.

The Court also directed that the terms of the compromise would form part of the judgment. It further stated that any non-compliance with the terms of the compromise would lead to contempt of court proceedings.

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

The Court relied on Article 142 of the Constitution of India* to exercise its powers to dissolve the marriage by mutual consent, emphasizing its role in ensuring complete justice.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the amicable settlement reached between the parties through mediation. The Court emphasized the need to provide complete justice and resolve the long-standing matrimonial dispute. The willingness of both parties to dissolve the marriage by mutual consent and settle all financial and legal matters played a crucial role in the Court’s decision. The Court also considered the welfare of the daughter, ensuring her financial security through the fixed deposit and additional payment at the time of her marriage.

Logical Reasoning

The Court did not consider any alternative interpretations, as both parties were in agreement and the settlement was deemed fair and just. The Court’s primary focus was on providing a final resolution to the dispute, given the circumstances and the mutual consent of the parties. The Court’s decision was based on the principle of complete justice and the need to bring closure to the matrimonial dispute.

The Supreme Court’s decision was based on the principle of complete justice. The Court stated that, “Since the parties have amicably settled the matter, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in exercise of our power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, the marriage of the appellant and the respondent solemnized on 07.05.1998 is dissolved.” The Court also noted that, “The following terms of Compromise between the parties shall form part of this judgment which reads as under…”, indicating the importance of the settlement agreement. The Court further emphasized that, “In case of non-compliance of the terms of compromise, the parties would be liable for contempt of this Court in addition to other remedies available under law.”

The decision was unanimous, with both Justices R. Banumathi and S. Abdul Nazeer agreeing on the outcome. There were no dissenting opinions.

The implications for future cases are that the Supreme Court may be willing to exercise its powers under Article 142 to dissolve marriages by mutual consent, even when lower courts have not granted a divorce, provided that the parties have reached an amicable settlement and the Court deems it necessary for complete justice.

No new doctrines or legal principles were introduced in this case. The Court’s decision was based on the application of Article 142 of the Constitution of India to the specific facts of the case.

Key Takeaways

• The Supreme Court can dissolve a marriage by mutual consent under Article 142 of the Constitution, even if lower courts have denied divorce.
• Amicable settlements reached through mediation are given significant weight by the Supreme Court.
• The Court prioritizes complete justice and the welfare of the parties and their children.
• Non-compliance with settlement terms can lead to contempt of court proceedings.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that the terms of the compromise would form part of the judgment and that the Registry would draft the decree accordingly. The Court also directed that the concerned courts should pass appropriate orders in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties, when applications are made before them.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the Supreme Court can exercise its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to dissolve a marriage by mutual consent when the parties have reached an amicable settlement, even if lower courts have not granted a divorce. This case reinforces the Supreme Court’s role in ensuring complete justice and resolving matrimonial disputes effectively. There is no change in the previous position of law, but it highlights the Supreme Court’s willingness to use its powers under Article 142 to ensure complete justice.

Conclusion

In Praveen Singh Ramakant Bhadauriya vs. Neelam Praveen Singh Bhadauriya, the Supreme Court dissolved the marriage by mutual consent, exercising its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution. This decision underscores the Court’s commitment to providing complete justice and resolving matrimonial disputes when parties have reached an amicable settlement. The case highlights the importance of mediation and the Court’s willingness to use its constitutional powers to ensure fair and just outcomes.