Supreme Court Dissolves Marriage Citing Irretrievable Breakdown, Quashes Extradition Order: Vishal Shah vs. Monali Shah Gupta (2025)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: February 20, 2025

Citation: 2025 INSC 254

Judges: Pankaj Mithal, J., Sandeep Mehta, J.

Can a marriage be dissolved if it has irretrievably broken down, even if one party opposes it? The Supreme Court of India addressed this critical question in the case of Vishal Shah vs. Monali Shah Gupta, focusing on the circumstances justifying the dissolution of a marriage and the quashing of an extradition order. The court considered the brief period of cohabitation, multiple litigations, and the lack of reconciliation prospects to conclude that the marriage had indeed irretrievably broken down. The judgment was delivered by a bench comprising Justices Pankaj Mithal and Sandeep Mehta.

Case Background

The marriage between Vishal Shah (the appellant) and Monali Shah Gupta (the respondent) was solemnized on February 19, 2018, according to Hindu rites. Shortly after, in March 2018, the couple moved to the United States of America, where Vishal Shah worked as a Software Engineer since 2014.

Vishal Shah alleged that he was subjected to continuous domestic abuse by Monali while residing in the USA. On March 23, 2018, he reported an incident of abuse to the local police, seeking protection and displaying visible injuries. Although he did not press charges, he requested a warning for his wife. On April 2, 2018, Monali allegedly scratched Vishal’s face, causing significant injuries, leading to her being charged with second-degree assault.

Due to these grave differences, their relationship became strained, leading to estrangement after only 80 days of marriage. The couple returned to India, but Monali refused to return to the USA with Vishal on May 19, 2018. Subsequently, Monali initiated multiple legal proceedings against Vishal and his family members in various courts across the country.

As a result of these cases, Vishal Shah’s passport was impounded by the authorities on October 3, 2018. Between 2018 and 2020, Monali resided with her mother-in-law, during which Vishal’s mother allegedly faced severe physical and mental torture, forcing her to seek shelter at her daughter’s residence on September 14, 2020. Consequently, a Complaint Case No. 446C of 2020 was filed by Vishal’s mother against Monali under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The trial Court, via order dated September 15, 2022, directed the competent authorities to initiate the extradition process against Vishal Shah after he failed to appear in Miscellaneous Case No. 440 of 2022, arising out of Criminal Case No. 446C of 2020.

Aggrieved by this direction, Vishal Shah filed Criminal Revision being CRR No. 135 of 2023 before the High Court of Calcutta. The High Court dismissed the revision on January 25, 2023, affirming the trial court’s order. This dismissal led Vishal Shah to file a special leave petition before the Supreme Court of India, challenging the High Court’s judgment.

Legal Framework

The judgment references several key legal provisions:

• Section 498A, Indian Penal Code (IPC): Deals with cruelty by husband or relatives towards a woman.
• Section 307, Indian Penal Code (IPC): Relates to attempt to murder.
• Section 506, Indian Penal Code (IPC): Pertains to punishment for criminal intimidation.
• Section 406, Indian Penal Code (IPC): Addresses punishment for criminal breach of trust.
• Section 323, Indian Penal Code (IPC): Deals with punishment for voluntarily causing hurt.
• Section 324, Indian Penal Code (IPC): Relates to voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means.
• Sections 3 & 4, Dowry Prohibition Act (DP Act): Prohibits giving or taking dowry.
• Section 12, Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (DV Act): Specifies the procedure for filing an application to a Magistrate.
• Section 9, Hindu Marriage Act (HMA): Concerns restitution of conjugal rights.
• Section 125, Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC): Provides for order for maintenance of wives, children, and parents.
• Sections 405, 406, 407, 420, 379, 499, 500, 324 and 506 IPC: Deals with criminal breach of trust, cheating, theft, defamation and criminal intimidation.
• Sections 31 & 32, DV Act: Specifies penalties for breach of protection order.
• Section 26, DV Act: Deals with relief in other suits and legal proceedings.
• Sections 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, DV Act: Specifies protection orders, residence orders, monetary relief, custody orders and compensation orders.
• Section 10, Passport Act, 1967: Deals with variation, impounding and revocation of passports and travel documents.
• Section 11, Passport Act, 1967: Provides for appeals against orders under Section 10.
• Article 142, Constitution of India: Empowers the Supreme Court to pass orders necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it.

These legal provisions form the basis for the various claims and counterclaims made by the parties involved. The Supreme Court’s interpretation and application of these laws are central to the judgment.

Arguments

Arguments by the Appellant (Vishal Shah):

• ✓ The appellant argued that the marriage lasted only 80 days, with no spousal interaction justifying the numerous cases filed by the respondent.
• ✓ He contended that the respondent launched a vendetta to harass and humiliate him and his family, evident from the multiple cases with almost identical allegations.
• ✓ The appellant highlighted that his elderly mother was forced out of her own house by the respondent.
• ✓ He claimed that the cases instituted by the respondent were a gross abuse of the process of law and reflected her vindictive nature.
• ✓ The appellant stated he made a generous proposal of permanent alimony for an amicable settlement, which the respondent rejected, preferring to continue harassment.
• ✓ He requested the Supreme Court to dissolve the marriage under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to end the plight of him and his family.

Arguments by the Respondent (Monali Shah Gupta):

• ✓ The respondent’s counsel argued that the respondent was maltreated and unlawfully turned out of the matrimonial home due to dowry greed.
• ✓ He contended that none of the cases filed by the respondent were barred by limitation and disclosed a valid cause of action.
• ✓ The respondent’s counsel stated that the appellant was granted conditional permission to travel abroad but failed to comply with court directions and sent derogatory emails.
• ✓ He argued that the Magistrate was justified in directing extradition proceedings against the appellant.
• ✓ The respondent’s counsel concluded that the court should not grant any relief to the appellant under Articles 136 and 142 of the Constitution of India.

Submissions Table

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

1. Whether the initiation of the extradition process against the appellant vide order dated 15th September 2022 is justified in the eyes of the law.
2. Whether there is an irretrievable breakdown of the marriage of the appellant and the respondent requiring this Court to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to do complete justice.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authority Treatment Table

Judgment

The Supreme Court delivered the following judgment:

1. The judgments/orders dated 15th September 2022 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Howrah and 25th January 2023 passed by the High Court were quashed and set aside.
2. The application filed by the appellant-husband, under Article 142(1) of the Constitution of India, was allowed, and the marriage between the appellant and the respondent was dissolved on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage.
3. Consequently, all the criminal cases/DV Act complaints and civil cases pending between the respondent and the appellant and his family members shall stand closed.
4. The appellant shall deposit a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty-Five Lakhs only) in the Registry of this Court as the amount of permanent alimony payable to the respondent within two months from today.
5. The passport of the appellant shall be released by the authorities concerned within a period of one week from today.

Treatment of Submissions

What Weighed in the Mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision to dissolve the marriage and quash the extradition order was influenced by several factors. The sentiment analysis reveals the key considerations that weighed in the mind of the Court:

• ✓ Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage: The Court emphasized the short duration of cohabitation (80 days), the prolonged separation since May 2018, and the multiple litigations between the parties. These factors collectively indicated that the marriage had irretrievably broken down, with no possibility of reconciliation.
• ✓ Passport Impoundment: The Court noted that the appellant’s inability to appear in court was due to the impoundment of his passport, a circumstance beyond his control. The Court deemed the impoundment illegal as it violated the principles of natural justice.
• ✓ Nature of DV Act Proceedings: The Court observed that proceedings under the DV Act are quasi-criminal in nature and do not require the personal presence of the accused. Therefore, the trial court’s direction for the appellant’s personal appearance was deemed erroneous.
• ✓ Lack of Children: The absence of children from the wedlock was a significant factor, as the dissolution of the marriage would only affect the parties themselves and not any innocent child.
• ✓ Vindictive Litigation: The Court noted the numerous cases filed by the respondent against the appellant and his family members, reflecting a vindictive attitude and the bitterness that had seeped into the marital relationship.

Logical Reasoning

Issue 1: Justification of Extradition Process

Issue 2: Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage

Key Takeaways

• ✓ Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage: The Supreme Court can dissolve a marriage if it finds that it has irretrievably broken down, even if one party opposes it. The factors considered include the length of separation, the nature of allegations, and attempts at reconciliation.
• ✓ Passport Impoundment: Impounding a passportwithout following the principles of natural justice is illegal. The affected party must be given an opportunity to be heard.
• ✓ Extradition in DV Act Cases: Personal appearance in DV Act cases is not always necessary, and extradition orders should not be issued routinely, especially when the accused’s absence is due to circumstances beyond their control.
• ✓ Article 142 of the Constitution: The Supreme Court can use its power under Article 142 to do complete justice in any matter, including dissolving a marriage and closing pending cases.
• ✓ Permanent Alimony: When dissolving a marriage, the Court will consider the financial status of both parties and award permanent alimony to ensure a fair settlement.

Conclusion

In Vishal Shah vs. Monali Shah Gupta, the Supreme Court of India reaffirmed its commitment to delivering justice by dissolving a marriage that had irretrievably broken down. The Court’s decision to quash the extradition order and dissolve the marriage under Article 142 underscores its willingness to intervene in cases where the relationship has deteriorated beyond repair and where legal processes have been misused. The judgment serves as a significant precedent for cases involving marital discord, passport impoundment, and the exercise of extraordinary powers by the Supreme Court to ensure equitable outcomes.