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

Anil Yashwant Karande Vs. Mangal Anil Karande, 2015 SCC OnLine Bom 6257

The court observed that, by submitting an application under section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for the restoration of conjugal rights within the same roof, a spouse cannot claim that they would force another person to cohabit with them and treat them cruelly at the same time. Read more »

M/s Siddamsetty Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Katta Sujatha Reddy & Ors

In M/s Siddamsetty Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd. v. Katta Sujatha Reddy & Ors., the Supreme Court recalled its earlier decision and restored the Telangana High Court’s judgment directing specific performance proportionate to the consideration paid for the sale of a property. The petitioner, having paid 90% of the sale consideration, sought specific performance after the... Read more » Read more »

Moral Responsibility Alone Insufficient for Criminal Liability, Charge or Control Over Child Essential to Punish under S. 75 of the JJ Act

In S.C. Narang Vs. State (NCT Of Delhi), 2025 INSC 688, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 cannot be used to punish Chairman of the school’s Managing Committee as he neither has actual charge of the child nor control over him/her. The appeal arose from an incident... Read more » 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.