Supreme court chooses conclusive adjudication over procedural rigmarole with respect to Divorce at least at the final leg of litigation.

  1. Home
  2. /
  3. Publications
  4. /
  5. Case Snippets
  6. /
  7. Supreme court chooses...

In this landmark case of Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan 2023 INSC 468 a five-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, led by Justice Sanjiv Khanna, clarified the scope of Article 142 of the Indian Constitution . The Court held that in order to do complete justice it can dissolve a marriage by mutual consent under Article 142 without adhering to the cooling-off period under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Additionally, it ruled that divorce could also be granted unilaterally under Article 142 if the marriage had been irretrievably broken down. The Court further confirmed its power to quash the other proceedings between the parties, including criminal cases, while exercising Article 142. Importantly, the Court confirmed that parties cannot directly file writs under Articles 32 or 226 to seek such divorce they must approach the family court as the court of first instance.

Tags:

Let us help you!

If you need any help, please feel free to contact us. We will get back to you within one business day. Alternatively, if you're in a hurry, you can call us now

+91 9052538538
info@karavadi.in

Recent Case Snippets

Pulicherla Nagaraju alias Nagaraja Reddy Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh; (2006) 11 SCC 444

The Court reaffirmed that the mere fact that a witness is related to the deceased should not be the sole reason for rejecting their testimony. Instead, the evidence should be assessed for its trustworthiness and credibility. If found reliable and probable, it can be considered, but if it raises suspicion, Read more »

Meena (Smt.) W/o. Balwant Hemke Vs. State of Maharashtra; 2000 (5) SCC 21

The Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that, mere recovery of the currency note and positive result of the phenolphthalein test not enough in the peculiar circumstances of the case, to establish guilt of the appellant on the basis of perfunctory nature of materials and prevaricating type of evidence. That the Read more »

SC Clarifies the limitation period under 468 of CR.P.C

In Ghanshyam Soni v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2025 INSC 803), the Supreme Court held that for Section 468 CrPC, the limitation period runs from the date a complaint is filed, not when the Magistrate takes cognizance. A timely 498A IPC complaint cannot be dismissed as time-barred due to court Read more »

Disclaimer

The Rules and Regulations set forth by the Bar Council of India under Advocates Act, 1961 prohibit Advocates or Law Firms from advertising or soliciting work through public domain communications. This website is intended solely to provide information. Karavadi & Associates (“K&A”) does not aim to advertise or solicit clients through this platform. K & A disclaim any responsibility for decisions made by readers/visitors based solely on the content of this website.

By clicking 'AGREE,' readers/visitors agree and acknowledge that the information provided herein (a) does not constitute advertising or solicitation, and (b) is intended solely for their understanding of K & A services. By continuing to use this site, you consent to the use of cookies on your device as outlined in our Cookie Policy.