Supreme Court of India Judgements

37260 Judgements hosted as on12/06/2026 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Category: Matrimonial

Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage Matrimonial

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage — When parties have been living separately for an extended period (e.g., over 15 years), all reconciliation efforts have failed, and there is no possibility of reunion due to strained relations, the marriage can be considered to have irretrievably broken down.

Jun 4, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 620 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SONAL TALPADA Vs. VEERBHAN SINGH ( Before : Sanjay Karol and Augustine George Masih, JJ. ) Civil Appeal No…..of 2026 (Arising…

Matrimonial

Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 142 — Supreme Court’s power to do complete justice — Marriage irretrievably broken down — Possibility of reconciliation non-existent — Multiple civil and criminal proceedings pending between parties — Compelling parties to remain married when ties have long been severed serves no legitimate purpose — Supreme Court can dissolve marriage under Article 142.

May 31, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 577 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SALIL DHAWAN Vs. PRIYANSHI GHAI ( Before : Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, JJ. ) Civil Appeal No…..of 2026 (Arising out…

Matrimonial

Wife’s pursuit of professional career and desire to provide safe environment for child are not grounds for cruelty or desertion. -Family Law — Divorce — Grounds — Cruelty and Desertion — Wife’s pursuit of professional career and desire to provide safe environment for child are not grounds for cruelty or desertion.

May 14, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 475 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ANN SAURABH DUTT Vs. LIEUTENANT COLONEL SAURABH IQBAL BAHADUR DUTT ( Before : Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, JJ. ) Civil…

Maintenance Matrimonial

Matrimonial law — Maintenance — Deductions from husband’s salary — Voluntary deductions for asset creation (e.g., loan repayments) cannot dilute primary maintenance obligation — Husband’s duty to maintain spouse is primary and continuing, enabling wife to live with dignity.

Apr 18, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 370 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH DEEPA JOSHI Vs. GAURAV JOSHI ( Before : Sanjay Karol and Augustine George Masih, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No. ….of 2026…

Matrimonial

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — Section 13B — Divorce by Mutual Consent — Settlement agreement reached in mediation — Wife withdrew consent before Second Motion for divorce — Held, while ordinarily consent can be withdrawn, when a settlement agreement has been entered into for full and final settlement of disputes, it is not open for a party to resile from its terms without demonstrating fraud, force, or undue influence — Wife failed to prove her allegations of fraud or compulsion by Husband, and her claims about substantial jewelry not mentioned in the settlement were unsubstantiated and raised suspicion due to delayed assertion — Held, wife’s withdrawal of consent was not justified.

Apr 15, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 360 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH DHANANJAY RATHI Vs. RUCHIKA RATHI ( Before : Rajesh Bindal and Vijay Bishnoi, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No(s). 1924 of 2026…

Constitution Matrimonial

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. )…

You missed

SARFAESI

Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 — Auction Sale — Compliance with Rule 9 — Mandatory Nature — Payment of Balance 75% Beyond 15-Day Period — No Written Agreement for Extension — Sale Set Aside — Article 142 — Redemption Opportunity Granted to Legal Heirs of Deceased Guarantor.

Jun 12, 2026 sclaw
Cr P C

Third Judge under S. 392 CrPC cannot disturb unanimous Division Bench findings; reference confined to disagreed accused only.–Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 392 — Third Judge — Power to give independent opinion — Options available — When an appeal is heard by a Division Bench and the Judges are divided in opinion, the appeal is laid before a third Judge under S. 392 — The third Judge is not confined to choosing between the two views expressed by the Division Bench Judges — The third Judge may: (i) agree with either of the two opinions expressed; (ii) form an independent view at divergence with both opinions; or (iii) where warranted, receive additional evidence under S. 391 before forming an opinion — The opinion of the third Judge governs and the judgment follows therefrom.

Jun 12, 2026 sclaw
Constitution Service

Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 226(1) — Territorial jurisdiction — Writ petition by CAPF personnel — Delhi High Court — Jurisdiction based on situs of respondent’s office —The Delhi High Court has territorial jurisdiction under Art. 226(1) of the Constitution to entertain a writ petition preferred by any enrolled member of the Border Security Force or any Central Armed Police Force (CAPF) who is aggrieved by an administrative order of termination of service, by reason of the situs of the offices of the Union of India and the Director General of the concerned CAPF in New Delhi — and this jurisdictional competence subsists notwithstanding that the impugned order of termination was issued from a place outside the territorial limits of the Delhi High Court and that no part of the cause of action arose within such limits — The Union of India and the Director General, BSF are necessary parties to such a writ petition by virtue of Ss. 4 and 5 of the BSF Act and the requirement under R. 22(4) of the BSF Rules that every order of dismissal/removal be reported to the Director General; there is, moreover, a presumption that official acts have been regularly performed.

Jun 12, 2026 sclaw
Accident

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 168 — Compensation — Death of homemaker — New head of ‘Loss of Domestic Care’ — Basis and quantum — The conventional method of computing compensation upon the death of a homemaker suffers from an inherent disadvantage — Notional income, as assigned by earlier decisions, fails to capture the economic, emotional and managerial contributions that a homemaker makes to the household and to nation-building at large — In recognition of the multifarious yet unquantified roles of a homemaker — (i) contribution towards smooth functioning of the household; (ii) loss of maternal support to children; and (iii) loss of spousal/parental support — a composite sum of Rs. 30,000/- per month shall be added under the head ‘Loss of Domestic Care’ — This sum shall serve as the stand-in monthly income where the homemaker has no conventional monetary income — It shall be revised cumulatively by 10% every three years — Where the homemaker is part of the paid workforce, this head shall be in addition to the proved monthly income.

Jun 12, 2026 sclaw