Supreme Court Ends 20-Year Matrimonial Dispute: Sachin Dhuri vs. Sneha Dhuri (2018)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: February 22, 2018
Citation: [Not Available in Source]
Judges: Justice Kurian Joseph and Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar

Can a couple, entangled in a two-decade-long legal battle, find a peaceful resolution? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this very question in the case of Sachin Dinanath Dhuri vs. Mrs. Sneha Sachin Dhuri. This case highlights the Court’s role in facilitating amicable settlements in long-standing matrimonial disputes. The judgment focuses on dissolving the marriage by mutual consent and putting an end to all related litigations. The bench consisted of Justice Kurian Joseph and Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar.

Case Background

The case involves a protracted matrimonial dispute between Sachin Dinanath Dhuri (the appellant) and Mrs. Sneha Sachin Dhuri (the respondent). The couple had been living separately for over 20 years and had been engaged in litigation for more than a decade. The dispute had also drawn in other family members, including the respondent’s father and the appellant’s mother and sister, as parties to some of the litigations.

Initially, the High Court of Judicature at Bombay had passed an order on 21.03.2016, which led the appellant to approach the Supreme Court. Recognizing the core issue as a matrimonial discord, the Supreme Court, on 30.09.2016, referred the parties to mediation. However, the mediation was unsuccessful, as reported by the learned mediator of the Supreme Court Mediation Center on 16.11.2016.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The Supreme Court initially referred the parties to mediation, which unfortunately did not yield a resolution. Following the failed mediation, the Court directed the personal presence of the appellant, respondent, and their son. After interacting with the parties, the Court sought the assistance of Sh. Salman Khurshid, learned senior counsel, whose efforts proved fruitful. The parties eventually reached a settlement, documented in consent terms dated 20.02.2018, which were signed by all parties and their respective counsel.

Legal Framework

The primary legal provision relevant to this case is Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, which deals with divorce by mutual consent. The section allows a couple to jointly petition for divorce if they have been living separately for a year or more and have mutually agreed that the marriage should be dissolved.

The Court noted that the parties had filed an application under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Given the prolonged litigation and the terms of the settlement, the Court decided to waive the usual waiting period for a decree of divorce by mutual consent.

Arguments

The primary argument presented before the Supreme Court was that both parties had mutually agreed to end their marriage and all related litigations. The parties submitted consent terms, indicating their willingness to part as friends and resolve all disputes amicably.

The parties jointly submitted that they had decided to dissolve their marriage by mutual consent under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. They also agreed to withdraw all other pending cases, both civil and criminal, as part of the settlement.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame specific issues in a separate section. However, the core issues addressed by the court were:

1. Whether the marriage between the appellant and the respondent should be dissolved by mutual consent under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
2. Whether all related civil and criminal litigations between the parties should be terminated.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Court primarily relied on Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, which provides for divorce by mutual consent.

Judgment

The Court accepted the submissions of both parties. The marriage between the appellant and the respondent was dissolved by mutual consent. All related civil and criminal litigations were quashed or dismissed to ensure a complete resolution.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was heavily influenced by the mutual agreement between the parties to end their marriage and all related litigations. The Court emphasized the need for a peaceful resolution after two decades of discord. The willingness of the parties to settle their disputes amicably weighed significantly in the Court’s decision to dissolve the marriage and quash all pending cases.

The Court considered the factual aspects of the case, particularly the prolonged litigation and the parties’ desire for a settlement. However, the legal framework, specifically Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, played a more significant role in the Court’s decision.

The court’s reasoning was straightforward: the parties had mutually agreed to end their marriage and all related litigations. The court, therefore, facilitated this agreement by dissolving the marriage and quashing all pending cases.

The Court quoted: “The parties have agreed, as can be seen from the agreement, to put an end to all the related litigations also. They have decided to part as friends.”

The Court further noted: “Having regard to the prolonged litigation and having regard to the terms of settlement, we are of the view that there is no need for any further waiting period for a decree of divorce by mutual consent under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act.”

The Court also stated: “In view of the above, we are of the view that it is in the interest of justice that all the criminal and civil litigations are also put an end to, since even if the parties are sent to trial in criminal cases in view of the settlement they have arrived at and in view of the submissions they have made before this Court, the same would only end up in acquittal.”

Key Takeaways

• ✓ Mutual consent is a crucial factor in dissolving marriages under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
• ✓ The Supreme Court can facilitate amicable settlements in long-standing matrimonial disputes.
• ✓ Courts may waive the waiting period for divorce by mutual consent in cases of prolonged litigation and settlement.
• ✓ Settlement agreements can be used to quash related civil and criminal litigations.
• ✓ The welfare of children should be a priority, even after the dissolution of marriage.

This judgment emphasizes the importance of mutual consent and amicable settlements in resolving matrimonial disputes. It also shows the Supreme Court’s willingness to expedite the resolution of long-standing cases when parties agree to a settlement.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the appellant and the respondent not to initiate any further litigations regarding the issues covered in the settlement agreement. The Court also directed the father to ensure the welfare of their son, particularly concerning his education and career prospects.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the Supreme Court can dissolve a marriage by mutual consent under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and quash all related litigations when the parties have reached a settlement. This judgment reinforces the importance of mutual consent and amicable settlements in resolving matrimonial disputes. There is no change in the previous position of law, but this case highlights the court’s proactive role in facilitating settlements.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Sachin Dinanath Dhuri vs. Mrs. Sneha Sachin Dhuri effectively ends a two-decade-long matrimonial dispute. By dissolving the marriage by mutual consent and quashing all related litigations, the Court has provided a much-needed resolution for the parties involved. This case underscores the importance of mutual agreement and settlement in resolving protracted legal battles.