Supreme Court Facilitates Divorce by Mutual Consent and Property Settlement: Dipankar Debapriya Haldar vs. Teesta Dipankar Haldar (2021)

Date of the Judgment: April 8, 2021

Citation: Not Available

Judges: S.A. Bobde, CJI., A.S. Bopanna, J., V. Ramasubramanian, J.

Can a transfer petition before the Supreme Court be resolved through a settlement agreement reached during mediation, leading to a divorce by mutual consent and a comprehensive property settlement? The Supreme Court addressed this question in the case of *Dipankar Debapriya Haldar vs. Teesta Dipankar Haldar*. The Court facilitated a divorce by mutual consent and settled property disputes based on a settlement agreement reached during mediation. The bench comprised Chief Justice S.A. Bobde and Justices A.S. Bopanna and V. Ramasubramanian.

Case Background

The petitioner, Dipankar Debapriya Haldar, and the respondent, Teesta Dipankar Haldar, are husband and wife. The petitioner filed a transfer petition seeking the transfer of Matrimonial Case No. 67 of 2013 from the Additional District Judge, 6th Court, Alipore, Kolkata, to a competent court in New Delhi.

The couple married on November 26, 1993, in Kolkata, and lived together until January 22, 2012. They have one son, Indrajeet Haldar, who is now an adult. Due to differences, they began living separately with their respective parents.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

Initially, the Supreme Court issued a notice on March 1, 2019, to refer the matter to mediation. The case was then directed to the Supreme Court Mediation Centre. Through several mediation sessions held on December 13, 2019, January 22, 2020, and January 23, 2020, the parties reached a settlement agreement.

Legal Framework

The primary legal provision relevant to this case is Article 142 of the Constitution of India. This article grants the Supreme Court the power to pass decrees or orders necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it. The settlement agreement also references the legal framework for divorce by mutual consent.

Article 142 of the Constitution of India states:

“142. Enforcement of decrees and orders of Supreme Court and orders as to discovery, etc. (1) 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. (2) Subject to the provisions of any law made in this behalf by Parliament, the Supreme Court shall have all and every power to make any order for the purpose of securing the attendance of any person, the discovery or production of any documents, or the investigation or punishment of any contempt of itself.”

Arguments

The parties, through their settlement agreement, made the following submissions:

• Both parties voluntarily agreed not to live together as husband and wife.
• They listed pending cases between them:
  • Divorce Petition (Matrimonial No. 1525 of 2012, renumbered as Mat Suit No. 67 of 2013) filed by Teesta Haldar.
  • Police complaints filed by Teesta Haldar in Navi Mumbai/Mumbai.
  • Restitution of Conjugal Rights (H.M.A. No. 3335 of 2012) filed by Dipankar Haldar.
  • Title Suit No. 17 of 2017 filed by Dipankar Haldar.
  • Any other pending cases/complaints.
• They agreed to a full and final settlement:
  • They requested the Supreme Court to exercise its power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to grant a decree of divorce by mutual consent and to quash all pending cases.
  • If the Supreme Court was not inclined to grant a divorce under Article 142, they agreed to file a mutual divorce petition in Kolkata within one month of the Supreme Court’s order.
  • Regarding the property at Kanchan Towers, Navi Mumbai, Dipankar Haldar agreed to release the property papers to Teesta Haldar.
  • Dipankar Haldar agreed to withdraw Title Suit No. 17 of 2017 after the first motion of the mutual consent divorce.
  • Teesta Haldar agreed to relinquish her share in the property at Neel Splendor, New Panvel, in favor of Dipankar Haldar, with Dipankar Haldar bearing the expenses.
  • Teesta Haldar’s name would be removed from the lockers at Axis Bank and Dena Bank.
  • All joint bank accounts would be closed.
  • Teesta Haldar would not claim Stridhan, maintenance, or alimony.
  • Dipankar Haldar agreed to return specific furniture and valuables to Teesta Haldar.
• Both parties agreed to withdraw all pending cases and not to initiate any future litigation against each other.
• They affirmed that the settlement was entered into by their free will.

Submissions

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame specific issues but addressed the core matter of whether to accept the settlement agreement and dispose of the transfer petition based on its terms, including facilitating a divorce by mutual consent.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court did not explicitly cite any specific cases or legal provisions other than Article 142 of the Constitution of India. The Court relied on its inherent power to do complete justice and facilitate the settlement agreed upon by the parties.

Judgment

Article 142 of the Constitution of India* was used by the court to facilitate complete justice by accepting the settlement agreement and giving directions to implement the terms of the settlement.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Court was primarily influenced by the fact that the parties had reached a voluntary settlement through mediation. The Court’s reasoning emphasized the need to give effect to the settlement agreement to ensure complete justice and to minimize inconvenience to the parties. The Court focused on facilitating the resolution of the matrimonial dispute and the associated property matters.

The Court did not explore alternative interpretations, as the settlement agreement was clear and comprehensive. The Court’s decision was aimed at giving effect to the agreement and resolving the disputes between the parties amicably.

The Court’s decision was based on the following reasons:

• The parties had voluntarily agreed to a settlement through mediation.
• The settlement agreement addressed all pending disputes between the parties.
• The Court aimed to ensure complete justice by facilitating the implementation of the agreement.
• The Court sought to minimize any inconvenience to the parties.

The Court quoted the following from the settlement agreement:

“Both the parties hereto confirm and declare that they have, voluntarily and of their own free­will, have decided not to live together as husband and wife and have arrived at this Settlement in the presence of the mediator, their respective counsels and their family members.”

“That both the parties herein agree that all the pending cases whether specifically mentioned or not between the parties herein shall be withdrawn. The parties undertake not to initiate any other litigation against each other in future also.”

“The parties declare that this full and final settlement cum understanding has been entered into by their free will and both the parties will abide by the terms and conditions of the same.”

Key Takeaways

• ✓ The Supreme Court can facilitate divorce by mutual consent and property settlement based on a settlement agreement reached during mediation.
• ✓ Parties can resolve complex matrimonial disputes through mediation, leading to a comprehensive settlement.
• ✓ The Court prioritizes voluntary settlements and aims to minimize inconvenience to the parties.
• ✓ Article 142 of the Constitution of India can be used to ensure complete justice in matters before the Supreme Court.

Directions

The Supreme Court gave the following directions:

• ✓ The parties shall file a petition for divorce by mutual consent before the appropriate court at Kolkata.
• ✓ The petitioner shall visit HDFC with the respondent to release the title deeds and papers for the Kanchan Towers property.
• ✓ Title Suit No. 17 of 2017, filed by the petitioner, shall stand dismissed as withdrawn.
• ✓ The respondent shall relinquish her share in the Neel Splendor property, with the petitioner bearing the expenses.
• ✓ The respondent’s name shall be removed from the joint ownership of the lockers at Axis Bank and Dena Bank.
• ✓ All joint bank accounts shall be closed with the mutual assistance of the parties.
• ✓ All disputes between the parties shall stand resolved as per the settlement agreement, and the parties shall have no further claims against each other, except the obligations stated in the agreement.
• ✓ The petitioner shall permit the respondent to take the furniture listed in the settlement agreement.

Specific Amendments Analysis

There were no specific amendments discussed in this judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the Supreme Court can use its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to facilitate a settlement reached through mediation, including directing a divorce by mutual consent and settling property disputes. This case reinforces the importance of mediation in resolving matrimonial disputes and highlights the Court’s willingness to give effect to voluntary settlements.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court disposed of the transfer petition by facilitating a divorce by mutual consent and settling property disputes based on a settlement agreement reached during mediation. The Court directed the parties to file a mutual consent divorce petition in Kolkata and ordered the implementation of the property settlement as agreed. This case demonstrates the Court’s commitment to resolving disputes amicably and ensuring complete justice.