Supreme Court of India Judgements

47260 Judgements hosted as on 24/05/2026 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Category: Matrimonial

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reached in mediation — Wife withdrew consent before Second Motion for divorce — Held, while ordinarily consent can be withdrawn, when a settlement agreement has been entered into for full and final settlement of disputes, it is not open for a party to resile from its terms without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. )…

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.…

You missed

Constitution

Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 32 — Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Sections 154, 173 — Clubbing/Transfer of FIRs — Multiple FIRs registered against petitioners in different jurisdictions arising from same set of transactions relating to a real estate project — Held, multiplicity of FIRs and parallel investigations on same facts leads to avoidable multiplicity of proceedings, conflicting findings and serious prejudice to the accused — Principle laid down in T.T — Antony v — State of Kerala, (2001) 6 SCC 181, that there cannot be multiple FIRs for the same occurrence or transaction, squarely applies — FIR No. 30/2019 (EOW, Delhi) directed to be transferred and clubbed with FIR No. 439/2024 (Gurugram, Haryana) for investigation — Blanket direction restraining coercive steps in future FIRs declined, but petitioners permitted to avail remedies in law if future FIRs are based on the same transaction.

May 24, 2026 sclaw
Cr P C

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 482 — Abuse of Process of Court — Discharge of Accused — Vague Allegations — Where allegations in FIR and charge sheet are general and do not specify the role of the accused, continuation of criminal proceedings amounts to abuse of process of court and may cause prejudice.

May 24, 2026 sclaw
C P C

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Section 2(2), Order 20 Rule 18 — Preliminary vs. Final Decree — A Preliminary Decree declares rights and liabilities, leaving actual results to be worked out in further proceedings — A Final Decree is passed after further inquiries, completely disposing of the suit — A Preliminary Decree cannot be executed directly unless it is partly final — Provisions of Order 20 Rule 18 allow a court to pass a Preliminary Decree declaring rights and giving further directions if partition cannot be conveniently made without further inquiry in suits for partition of immovable property — The Supreme Court noted that the High Court erred by focusing on the nomenclature of the decree rather than its executable portions, especially when the property was not divisible by metes and bounds.

May 24, 2026 sclaw
Constitution Narcotics Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act

Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 — Section 43-D(5) — Bail — Constitutional Courts’ power to grant bail — The Supreme Court reiterated that statutory restrictions on bail under the UAP Act do not oust the power of constitutional courts to grant bail on grounds of violation of fundamental rights, particularly the right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution — The Court emphasized that the rigors of Section 43-D(5) can “melt down” when there is no likelihood of trial completion within a reasonable time and the period of incarceration is substantial.

May 24, 2026 sclaw