Supreme Court of India Judgements

47000 Judgements hosted as on 19/12/2025 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Category: Matrimonial

Matrimonial

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — Sections 13(1)(i-a) and 13(1)(i-b) — Divorce — Desertion and Cruelty — Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage — Where parties have been living separately for a long period (24 years in this case) without any prospect of reconciliation, this long period of separation amounts to mental cruelty to both parties, justifying dissolution of marriage — The marriage is deemed to have broken down irretrievably — Fact that spouses hold strongly views and refuse to accommodate each other also constitutes cruelty. (Paras 20, 21, 23, 24, 25, 26, 33, 34)

Dec 17, 2025 sclaw

2025 INSC 1436 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH NAYAN BHOWMICK Vs. APARNA CHAKRABORTY ( Before : Manmohan and Joymalya Bagchi, JJ. ) Civil Appeal No. 5167 of 2012 Decided…

Matrimonial

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — Section 13(1)(ia) — Divorce — Cruelty — Irretrievable breakdown of marriage — Parties living separately for more than thirteen years (since 2012) without any meaningful effort at reconciliation — Relationship deeply embittered and acrimonious — High Court confirmed dissolution of marriage considering the welfare of the parties and their child — Supreme Court affirmed the decree of divorce, holding that perpetuating a legal bond long ceased to have substance would only prolong hostility and impede ability to move forward with dignity, confirming dissolution is in the interest of justice and welfare of all concerned. (Paras 4, 6, 7, 13)

Dec 7, 2025 sclaw

2025 INSC 1390 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SONIA VIRK Vs. ROHIT VATS ( Before : Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, JJ. ) Civil Appeal No. 14856 of 2024…

Matrimonial

Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 — Section 3(1)(d) — Right to property given at marriage — Divorced Muslim Woman — The Act allows a divorced woman to claim all properties given to her before, at the time of, or after marriage by her relatives, friends, the husband, or his relatives/friends — The objective of the Act is to secure the financial protection and dignity of a Muslim woman post-divorce. (Paras 3, 7, 9)

Dec 3, 2025 sclaw

2025 INSC 1375 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ROUSANARA BEGUM Vs. S.K. SALAHUDDIN @ SK SALAUDDIN AND ANOTHER ( Before : Sanjay Karol and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, JJ. )…

Matrimonial

Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 142 — Supreme Court’s inherent powers — Invoking powers for divorce by mutual consent after mediation settlement and agreement to withdraw all cases — Parties having irretrievable breakdown of marriage and living separately for over five years — Court grants decree of divorce by mutual consent and quashes pending criminal cases and FIRs.

Sep 21, 2025 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ISHA JAIN (AGGARWAL) Vs. NISHANT JAIN AND OTHERS ( Before : J.K. Maheshwari and Vijay Bishnoi, JJ. ) Transfer Petition (Criminal) No. 999 of…

Matrimonial

Transfer Petition — Jurisdiction — Courts — Petition seeking transfer of matrimonial and criminal cases from one state to another filed by both parties, wife seeking transfer of divorce case from Delhi to UP, husband seeking transfer of criminal cases from UP to Delhi. Parties have also filed special leave petitions against High Court orders. Supreme Court has the power to transfer cases.

Jul 29, 2025 sclaw

2025 INSC 883 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SHIVANGI BANSAL Vs. SAHIB BANSAL ( Before : B.R. Gavai, CJI. and Augustine George Masih, JJ. ) Transfer Petition (C) No.…

Matrimonial

Hindu Marriage Act, 1956 — Sections 12 and 13 — Family Courts Act, 1984 — Sections 6 and 9 — Irretrievable breakdown of marriage — Where the parties have agreed to a divorce but are in dispute over maintenance or permanent alimony, the court must determine the quantum of maintenance based on a balanced consideration of various factors, including the financial status of both parties, the standard of living during the marriage, and the reasonable needs of the dependent spouse — The court should aim to ensure that the dependent spouse is not reduced to destitution, while also avoiding an unreasonable financial burden on the other spouse.

Feb 2, 2025 sclaw

2025 INSC 135 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SAU. JIYA Vs. KULDEEP ( Before : Vikram Nath and Prasanna B. Varale, JJ. ) Civil Appeal No….of 2025 (SLP (C)…

Child Custody Matrimonial

For best interest and welfare of the child are the paramount considerations when determining visitation rights A. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — Section 26 — Visitation Rights — The paramount consideration when determining visitation rights is the best interest and welfare of the child — This principle takes precedence over the rights of the parents — The court emphasizes that a child’s health and well-being must not be compromised in the process of adjudicating parental rights. B. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — Section 26 — Visitation Rights — Both parents have a right to the care, company, and affection of their child — However, this right is not absolute and must be balanced with the need to protect the child’s welfare — In this case, the court acknowledges the father’s right to visit his daughter but ensures that these visits do not negatively impact the child. C. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — Section 26 — Visitation Rights — Matrimonial disputes and serious allegations between parents should not impede a child’s right to the care and company of both parents — The court separates the child’s welfare from the conflict between the parents. D. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — Section 26 — Visitation Rights — Visitation arrangements must not cause undue hardship to the child — The court modified the High Court’s order, which required the child to travel 300 kilometers every Sunday, as it was deemed detrimental to the child’s health and well-being. E. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — Section 26 — Visitation Rights — The location for visitation must be convenient and in the best interest of the child — The court changed the visitation location from Karur to Madurai, which is closer to the child’s residence, in order to prioritize the child’s comfort and convenience. F. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — Section 26 — Visitation Rights — Supervised visitation may be necessary, especially for young children — The court directed that the father’s visits should occur in a public place, with the mother present (though at a distance), due to the child’s young age and unfamiliarity with the father.

Dec 28, 2024 sclaw

2024 INSC 1036 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SUGIRTHA Vs. GOWTHAM ( Before : Vikram Nath and Prasanna B. Varale, JJ. ) Civil Appeal No….of 2024 (Arising Out of…

I P C Matrimonial

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 498A, 323 and 504 — Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 — Sections 3 and 4 — Irretrievable breakdown of marriage as a ground for divorce — The court recognized that irretrievable breakdown of marriage, where the parties have been living separately for a significant period and all efforts at reconciliation have failed, can be a valid ground for divorce — This expands the grounds for divorce beyond the traditional grounds mentioned in the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.— One-time settlement as a mode of permanent alimony — The court allowed the parties to opt for a one-time settlement as a mode of permanent alimony, instead of periodic payments — This provides flexibility to the parties in resolving their financial obligations towards each other.

Jul 20, 2024 sclaw

2024 INSC 530 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH KIRAN JYOT MAINI — Appellant Vs. ANISH PRAMOD PATEL — Respondent ( Before : Vikram Nath and Prashant Kumar Mishram, JJ.…

Matrimonial

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Section 13(1)(ia) – Divorce based on irretrievable breakdown of marriage – Ground of Irretrievable Breakdown – The court recognized irretrievable breakdown of marriage as a valid ground for divorce, even though it is not explicitly mentioned in the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – This expands the scope of grounds for divorce and provides a more compassionate approach to ending a marriage that has irreparably broken down.

May 11, 2024 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH JATINDER KUMAR SAPRA — Appellant Vs. ANUPAMA SAPRA — Respondent ( Before : Vikram Nath and Satish Chandra Sharma, JJ. ) Civil Appeal No(S).of…

Joint Family Property Matrimonial Property Matters

Suit for Partition – The Court found that ‘C’ remarriage extinguished her rights to her first husband’s property, and she could not pass on any title to the plaintiff – The Court applied the Hindu Widow’s Remarriage Act, 1856, and relevant case law to determine the impact of Chiruthey’s remarriage on her property rights – The Supreme Court concluded that the plaintiff could not inherit the property through ‘C’, as her rights were nullified upon remarriage, and the deeds did not confer valid title.

Apr 14, 2024 sclaw

2024 INSC 287 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH KIZHAKKE VATTAKANDIYIL MADHAVAN (DEAD) THR. LRS. — Appellant Vs. THIYYURKUNNATH MEETHAL JANAKI AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Aniruddha Bose…

You missed

Service

Cochin University of Science and Technology Act, 1986 — Section 31(10) and 31(11) — Selection and Appointment — Validity of Rank List and Communal Rotation — Harmonious Construction — Section 31(10) stipulates that the Rank List remains valid for two years, and vacancies arising during this period “shall be filled up from the list so published” — Section 31(11) mandates that “Communal rotation shall be followed category-wise” — These sub-sections operate in distinct spheres but are not mutually exclusive; the Rank List’s validity period (Sub-sec 10) co-exists with the mandatory application of communal rotation (Sub-sec 11) for every appointment made therefrom — Interpreting Sub-section (11) as becoming operative only after the Rank List expires would render the reservation/rotation requirement otiose during the list’s validity, defeating legislative intent and violating the doctrine of harmonious construction. (Paras 5, 5.2, 5.4, 5.5, 5.5.1, 5.5.2

Dec 19, 2025 sclaw
Acquittal I P C

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) —Section 302 read with Sections 149 and 148 — Murder —Conviction affirmed by High Court — Appeal to Supreme Court — Sufficiency of evidence — Role of interested/related witnesses — Deposition of PW-4 (mother of deceased and alleged eyewitness) scrutinized closely — Material contradictions found in PW-4’s evidence regarding the manner of assault and who informed her — Failure of prosecution to examine key witness (deceased’s granddaughter, who initially informed PW-4) — Independent witnesses (PW-1, PW-2, PW-3 and PW-9) turned hostile — Recovery of weapons based on accused’s memorandum/statement rendered unreliable when supporting witnesses hostile. (Paras 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 13, 14, 15)

Dec 19, 2025 sclaw
Constitution

Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948 — Section 45A — Determination of contributions in certain cases — Preconditions for invoking Section 45A — Section 45A is a special provision for best-judgment assessment applicable only when an employer fails to submit, furnish, or maintain returns, particulars, registers, or records as required by Section 44, OR obstructs an Inspector or official in discharging duties under Section 45 — It is not an alternative mode of assessment available at the option of the Corporation — When records (ledgers, cash books, vouchers, etc.) are produced and the employer cooperates by attending multiple personal hearings, the mere allegation of inadequacy or deficiency of supporting documents does not satisfy the statutory threshold of “non-production” or “obstruction” to invoke Section 45A — Mere inadequacy of records does not confer jurisdiction under Section 45A. (Paras 14.6, 14.7, 24, 25, 27, 30)

Dec 19, 2025 sclaw
Tenders & Contracts

Tender and Contract — Eligibility Criteria — Interpretation of “prime contractor” and “in the same name and style” — Requirement of work experience — Where an NIT’s pre-qualification document requires “each prime contractor in the same name and style (tenderer)” to have completed previous work, and the term “prime contractor” is undefined, its meaning must be derived from common parlance as the tenderer primarily responsible for the contract offer; however, the requirement must be construed from the standpoint of a prudent businessman, considering the credentials and capacity to execute the work, not merely the name. (Paras 17, 20, 21.3)

Dec 19, 2025 sclaw