Matrimonial Archives - Supreme Court of India Judgements

February 4, 2026 12:13 pm

Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 142 — Dissolution of marriage — Irretrievable breakdown — Supreme Court can dissolve marriage in exercise of extraordinary powers under Article 142 when marriage has irretrievably broken down, even if one party opposes it, to do complete justice. Factors to consider include period of cohabitation, separation, nature of allegations, attempts at reconciliation, and economic/social status. (Paras 4, 10, 11, 11.1, 11.2, 13, 15, 20, 26)

Jan 21, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 73 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH NEHA LAL Vs. ABHISHEK KUMAR ( Before : Rajesh Bindal and Manmohan, JJ. ) Transfer Petition (Crl.) No.338 of 2025 with…

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…

You missed

Bail Granted

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — Section 108, 80, 103, 85 — Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 — Sections 3, 4 — Offences — Abetment to suicide, Dowry death, Murder — Allegations of extra-marital relationship, demand of money/dowry — Deceased died of poisoning/injection — Autopsy findings — Prosecution case not strong at bail stage.

Feb 1, 2026 sclaw

Labour Cases

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 — Section 33(1) — Requirement for employer to seek permission before altering service conditions or stopping work of workmen during pendency of dispute — Failure to do so constitutes a breach of the Act.

Feb 1, 2026 sclaw

Labour Cases

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 — Sections 10(1), 12 — Reference of industrial dispute — Apprehended dispute — Appropriate Government’s power to refer — The appropriate Government has the power to refer an industrial dispute for adjudication if it is of the opinion that such dispute exists or is apprehended. The initiation of conciliation proceedings under Section 12 does not statutorily require a prior demand notice to the employer as a pre-condition to approaching the Conciliation Officer. The management’s argument that a prior demand notice is essential, based on certain previous judgments, fails as it ignores the provision for referring an apprehended dispute, which can be invoked to prevent industrial unrest

Feb 1, 2026 sclaw

Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) — Section 175(4) — Complaints against public servants alleged to have committed offenses in discharge of official duties — Interpretation — This provision is not a standalone provision, nor is it a proviso to Section 175(3) — It must be read in harmony with Section 175(3), with Section 175(4) forming an extension of Section 175(3) — The power to order investigation under Section 175(3) is conferred upon a judicial magistrate, while Section 175(4) also confers such power but prescribes a special procedure for complaints against public servants — The expression “complaint” in Section 175(4) does not encompass oral complaints and must be understood in the context of a written complaint supported by an affidavit, as required by Section 175(3) — This interpretation ensures that the procedural safeguard of an affidavit, mandated by Priyanka Srivastava v. State of U.P., is not undermined even when dealing with public servants — The intention is to provide a two-tier protection: first, at the threshold stage under Section 175(4) with additional safeguards, and second, at the post-investigation stage under Section 218(1) regarding previous sanction. (Paras 26, 31, 37.1, 37.2, 37.4, 37.5, 37.6, 37.8, 38, 39, 40, 42, 43, 44)

Feb 1, 2026 sclaw

Category: Matrimonial

You missed