Holding

The Court held that the marriage had irretrievably broken down, exercised its jurisdiction under Article 142(1) to dissolve the marriage, awarded Rs 12 crore as permanent alimony, and quashed the pending criminal cases.

Summary

The petitioner-wife Rinku Baheti filed a transfer petition seeking to move a pending divorce suit to the Pune Family Court and opposed the respondent-husband Sandesh Sharda's application under Article 142(1) for a decree of divorce on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage. The parties had a brief marriage of about three to four months, during which multiple criminal complaints were filed by the wife against the husband and his family, leading to a Look Out Circular and the husband's arrest. The Supreme Court examined whether the marriage had completely failed, whether Art.142(1) could be invoked, and how permanent alimony should be quantified. It held that the marriage was beyond repair, exercised its extraordinary jurisdiction to dissolve the marriage, and accepted the Family Court's assessment of Rs 12 crore as full and final permanent alimony, also quashing the criminal cases. The transfer petition was consequently disposed.

Issues considered

Whether the petitioner is entitled to the transfer of the divorce petition under Section 25 of the CPC.
Whether the Supreme Court can exercise power under Article 142(1) of the Constitution to grant a decree of divorce on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage.
Whether the marriage between the parties constitutes an irretrievable breakdown warranting dissolution.
How permanent alimony should be determined in the circumstances of a short marriage with no children.
Whether the criminal proceedings filed by the petitioner should be quashed.

Legislation cited

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908s. 25
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 200
Constitution of Indias. Article 142(1)
Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955s. 13, s. 13B
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 354, s. 360, s. 376, s. 377, s. 420, s. 427, s. 452, s. 454, s. 457, s. 498A, s. 503, s. 506, s. 509
Information Technology Act, 2000s. 66, s. 67
Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007

Headnote

Issue for Consideration Issue arose whether the petitioner-wife is entitled to the transfer of the divorce petition; and whether this Court, upon the application filed by the respondent-husband, can exercise its powers u/Art. 142(1) of the Constitution to grant a decree of divorce to the parties breakdown of marriage. Headnotes† Constitution of India – Art. 142(1) – Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – ss.13, 13B – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – s.25 – Transfer petition – Transfer of divorce petition – Dissolution of marriage –

Subjects

Transfer petitionTransfer of divorce petitionDecree of divorceIrretrievable breakdown of marriageDissolution of marriageMaintenancePermanent alimonySecond marriageHusband, citizen of USAMarital discordMultiple litigationsCriminal complaintsLook Out CircularPolice custodyFamily Court

Judgment

[2024] 12 S.C.R. 1355 : 2024 INSC 1014

Rinku Baheti
v.
Sandesh Sharda
(Transfer Petition (Civil) No. 278 of 2023)
19 December 2024
[B.V. Nagarathna* and Pankaj Mithal, JJ.]

Issue for Consideration
Issue arose whether the petitioner-wife is entitled to the transfer of
the divorce petition; and whether this Court, upon the application
filed by the respondent-husband, can exercise its powers
u/Art. 142(1) of the Constitution to grant a decree of divorce to
the parties on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage.

Headnotes†
Constitution of India – Art. 142(1) – Hindu Marriage Act,
1955 – ss.13, 13B – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – s.25 –
Transfer petition – Transfer of divorce petition – Dissolution of
marriage – Irretrievable breakdown of marriage – Permanent
alimony – Second marriage of both the parties – Husband-
respondent, a citizen of USA – Parties had brief period of
relationship of three months, thereafter marital discord
resulting in multiple litigations – Criminal complaints by the
wife-petitioner against the husband, alleging offences of
cruelty, outraging of modesty, rape, cheating, along with the
complaint against her father-in-law – Issuance of ‘Look Out
Circular’ against the husband, leading to his arrest at the
airport – Husband released on bail after one month of police
custody – Husband filed three divorce petitions within a span
of 34 days before the Family Court, out of which, the first
was dismissed as withdrawn; second filed by both parties
was dismissed for being pre-mature and the third is pending
adjudication – Transfer petition by the wife before this Court
seeking transfer of the third divorce petition – During pendency,
application u/Art.142(1) by the husband seeking dissolution
of marriage on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of
marriage – Wife also filed application before the Transferee
Court for fixation of alimony:

*Author
1356 [2024] 12 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

Held: Hardly any cordiality or meaningful marital relationship
emerged from the marriage of the parties – Submission of the
wife that she intends to continue her marital relationship with the
husband cannot be accepted – Events stated deterred the husband
from continuing with his marital relationship with the wife – It is
difficult to fathom as to how the wife can reasonably expect her
spouse to continue in a cordial marital relationship with her, when
she has filed a criminal case against him, got a “Look Out Circular”
issued against him, and even got him arrested – On one hand,
petitioner sought the dismissal of application u/Art.142(1) on the
ground that she wishes to continue the marriage, while in the same
breath, she has demanded a huge sum of money as permanent
alimony equalling the share received by the respondent’s ex-wife –
Petitioner’s criminal complaint, among other things, has left incurable
scar on the relationship between the parties – No chance for the
parties to reconcile their differences and lead a normal married
life hereinafter – Marriage has completely failed and also no child
born out of the wedlock – Thus, fit case to exercise discretion u/
Art.142(1), as such the application u/Art.142(1) is allowed and the
marriage between the petitioner and the respondent is dissolved
on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage – As regards,
permanent alimony the wife sought equalisation of status not just with
the respondent-husband but also with the ex-wife of the respondent,
which cannot be an acceptable approach – Petitioner cannot simply
claim an amount equal to what the ex-wife of the respondent had
received or on the basis of the income of the respondent – Court
has to not just consider the income of the respondent-husband,
but also bear in mind other factors such as the income of the
petitioner-wife, her reasonable needs, her residential rights, and
other similar factors – Thus, her entitlement to maintenance has to
be decided based on the factors applicable to her – Also duration
of marriage, a relevant factor to be taken into consideration which
was hardly three to four months – In the petition seeking divorce
by mutual consent, respondent agreed to pay sum of Rs.8 crores
towards full and final settlement of all claims of the petitioner –
Family Court assessed Rs.10 crores as the quantum of permanent
alimony, which is accepted – Additional amount of Rs.2 crores is
liable to be paid to the petitioner to enable her to acquire another
flat – Thus, sum of Rs.12 crores to be paid as permanent alimony
to the petitioner by the respondent as a full and final settlement
of all her claims on the respondent and his family – Also Rs. Three
Lakhs to be paid as litigation expenses. [Paras 9.10, 9.11, 9.13-9.16,
11-13, 14.7-14.10, 15]
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 1357

Rinku Baheti v. Sandesh Sharda

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Fixation of Maintenance/Alimony –
Factors for computing maintenance:
Held: No fixed formula for calculating maintenance amount –
Should be based on a balanced consideration of various factors –
Factors are illustrative but are not limited or exhaustive – Serious
reservations with the tendency of parties seeking maintenance or
alimony as an equalisation of wealth with the other party – Law
of maintenance aimed at empowering the destitute and achieving
social justice and dignity of the individual – Wife entitled to be
maintained as far as possible in a manner similar to what she
was accustomed to in her matrimonial home while the parties
were together – However, once the parties separated, it cannot
be expected of the husband to maintain her as per his present
status all his life – Wife cannot simply claim an amount equal to
what the ex-wife of the husband had received or on the basis of
the income of the husband. [Paras 14.3, 14.5, 14.7]

Constitution of India – Art. 142(1) – Exercise of jurisdiction
under – Cases of marital disputes – Grant of divorce on the
grounds of irretrievable breakdown of marriage – Power of:
Held: Art.142 empowers the Supreme Court to exercise its
jurisdiction to pass such decree or make such order as is necessary
for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before
it – Expression “such order as is necessary for doing complete
justice” has a wide amplitude and scope and empowers the
Supreme Court to make any order as may be necessary for doing
complete justice in a case before it – Supreme Court would look
into equitable consideration while passing such orders given the
facts and circumstances of a case, so as to further the cause
of justice – Power to grant a decree of divorce u/Art.142(1) is
exercisable by the Courts when, in the opinion of this Court there
is complete and irretrievable breakdown of marriage – Irretrievable
breakdown is to be determined in each case, that the marriage
has “completely failed” and there is no possibility of the parties
cohabiting together as husband and wife, and that the continuation
of the formal legal relationship of marriage is unjustified lacking in
substance and content – Family Court is bound by fault-divorce
provisions of HMA, has to appreciate evidence, however this Court
while dealing with an application u/Art.142(1) can depart from such
procedure by acting as a problem solver and balancing out the
1358 [2024] 12 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

equities between the conflicting claims – Court is not required to
look deep into the veracity of the detailed allegations made by the
parties against each other to find as to who is at fault, but to take
a holistic view on the relationship between the parties – Grant of
divorce on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage is
on the basis of exercise of discretion for doing complete justice
between the parties because there is no possibility of the parties
cohabiting together and continuing their marital relationship –
Divorce u/Art.142(1) cannot be sought as a matter of right.
[Paras 6.1, 7, 8.11-8.15]

Judicial deprecation – Marital dispute – Abuse of process of
law – Criminal proceedings between spouses and their impact
on marital ties:
Held: Provisions in the criminal law are for the protection and
empowerment of women but sometimes are used by certain women
more for purposes that they are never meant for – In recent times,
the invocation of ss.498A, 376, 377, 506 IPC as a combined
package in most of the complaints related to matrimonial disputes
is a practice condemned by this Court on several occasions –
Wife and her family tend to use a criminal complaint with all the
serious offences as a platform for negotiation and as a mechanism
and a tool to get the husband and his family to comply with their
demands, which are mostly monetary in nature – It is done in a
fit of rage after a marital dispute, while at times it is a planned
strategy in other cases – Unfortunately, it is not just the parties who
are involved in this abuse of the process of law – Furthermore,
Police personnel sometimes jump into action in selective cases
and arrest the husband or even their relatives including aged and
bedridden parents and grand-parents of the husband – Trial courts
are hesitant in granting bail to the accused persons being swayed
by the “gravity of the offences” mentioned in the FIR – Collective
effect of this chain of events is often overlooked by the actual
individual players involved, minor disputes between husband
and wife tend to snowball into ugly prodigious battles of ego and
reputation, eventually leading to the relationship turning sour to
the extent that there remains no possibility of a reconciliation or
cohabitation – Women to be careful about the fact that these strict
provisions of law in their hands are beneficial legislations for their
welfare and not means to chastise, threaten, domineer or extort
from their husbands. [Para 10]
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 1359

Rinku Baheti v. Sandesh Sharda

Case Law Cited
Naveen Kohli v. Neelu Kohli [2006] 3 SCR 53 : (2006) 4 SCC 558;
Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan [2023] 5 SCR 165 : (2016)
16 SCC 352 – followed.
Rajnesh v. Neha [2020] 13 SCR 1093 : (2021) 2 SCC 324;
Delma Lubna Coelho v. Edmond Clint Fernandes [2023] 4 SCR
473 : (2023) 18 SCC 447; Nirmal Singh Panesar v. Paramjit Kaur
Panesar @ Ajinder Kaur Panesar [2023] 13 SCR 832 : (2025) 3
SCC 790; Rakesh Raman v. Kavita [2023] 3 SCR 552 : (2023) 17
SCC 433; Vikas Kanaujia v. Sarita [2024] 7 SCR 933 : (2025) 3
SCC 748; Prakashchandra Joshi v. Kuntal Prakashchandra Joshi
@ Kuntal Visanji Shah [2024] 1 SCR 697 : (2025) 3 SCC 784;
R. Srinivas Kumar v. R. Shametha [2019] 12 SCR 873 : (2019)
9 SCC 409; Munish Kakkar v. Nidhi Kakkar [2019] 15 SCR 169 :
(2020) 14 SCC 657; N. Rajendran v. S. Valli [2022] 16 SCR 498 :
(2025) 3 SCC 801; K. Srinivas Rao v. D.A. Deepa [2013] 2 SCR
126 : (2013) 5 SCC 226; Anil Kumar Jain v. Maya Jain [2009] 14
SCR 90 : (2009) 10 SCC 415; Achin Gupta v. State of Haryana
& Anr. [2024] 6 SCR 129 : (2025) 3 SCC 756; Preeti Gupta v.
State of Jharkhand [2010] 9 SCR 1168 : (2010) 7 SCC 667; Dolly
Rani v. Manish Kumar Chanchal [2024] 5 SCR 510 : (2025) 2
SCC 587; Shakti v. Anita, Civil Appeal No. 7427/2023, MANU/
SCOR/139017/2023; Kiran Jyot Maini v. Anish Pramod Patel
[2024] 7 SCR 942 : 2024 SCC Online SC 1724; Vinny Paramvir
Parmar v. Paramvir Parmar [2011] 9 SCR 371 : (2011) 13 SCC
112; Vishwanath Agrawal v. Sarla Vishwanath Agrawal [2012] 7
SCR 607 : (2012) 7 SCC 288 – referred to.

List of Acts
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955; Information Technology Act, 2000;
Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007;
Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973; Penal Code, 1860; Constitution of India.

List of Keywords
Transfer petition; Transfer of divorce petition; Decree of divorce;
Irretrievable breakdown of marriage; Dissolution of marriage;
Maintenance/Permanent alimony; Second marriage; Husband, citizen
of USA; Marital discord; Multiple litigations; Criminal complaints;
‘Look Out Circular’; Police custody; Three divorce petitions; Family
1360 [2024] 12 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

Court; Permanent alimony equalling share received by husband’s ex-
wife; Hindu marriage, a sacrament; Sacred institution; Irreconcilable
status; Rupees twelve crores as permanent alimony to wife; Rupees
three lakhs as litigation expenses to wife; Abuse of process of law;
Protection and empowerment of women; Possibility of reconciliation
or cohabitation; Beneficial legislations; Balancing the equities.

Case Arising From
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Transfer Petition (Civil) No.
278 of 2023
Petition Filed under Section 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

Appearances for Parties
N.K. Modi, Sr. Adv., Ms. Ishita M. Puranik, Jigisha Agarwal, Praveen
Swarup, Ms. Anindita Mitra, Advs. for the Petitioner.
Mrs. Meenakshi Arora, Sr. Adv., Satish L. Maneshinde, Priyank
Upadhyay, Mrs. Shivali Sharma, Anupam Shukla, Abhinav
Sharma, Ms. Anandini Fernandes, Anadi Kumar Taylor, Advs. for
the Respondent.

Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

Judgment
Nagarathna, J.

This transfer petition has been filed by the petitioner-wife under
Section 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short “CPC”),
seeking the following reliefs:
“a) Grant transfer of Divorce Petition case filed under
section 13 (1) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 bearing
RCS(HM) No. 1379 of 2022 titled as Sandesh Sharda
Versus Rinku Baheti pending in the Hon’ble Court of
Ld. Principal Judge, Family Courts District Bhopal,
Madhya Pradesh to the Court of Ld. Principal Judge,
Family Courts, District Pune, Maharashtra; and
b) Pass such other order(s) or directions as this Hon’ble
Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances
of the case, to meet the ends of the justice.”
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 1361

Rinku Baheti v. Sandesh Sharda

2. The question for consideration before us is not just whether the
petitioner is entitled to the aforesaid relief, but also whether this
Court, upon the application filed by the respondent-husband, can
exercise its powers under Article 142(1) of the Constitution of India
to grant a decree of divorce to the parties herein on the ground of
irretrievable breakdown of marriage. If yes, then on what terms. In the
above backdrop, we have heard the application in the first instance.

Factual background:
3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case as narrated in the application
filed by the respondent/applicant are that the petitioner-wife and the
respondent-husband got married on 31.07.2021 as per Hindu rites
and rituals at Pune. It was a second marriage for both the parties.
The respondent had obtained a decree of divorce from his first wife on
09.11.2020. The said marriage had subsisted for almost two decades
and he has two children from his first marriage. The respondent is a
citizen of the United States of America (USA) and is engaged in the
business of Information Technology consultancy services in USA.
The petitioner is a post-graduate who has a degree in Finance and
further has studied Naturopathy and Yogic Sciences. The parties
met through a matrimonial portal in May 2020 and decided to tie
the knot after a few months.
3.1 The petitioner and the respondent started having marital discord,
largely over the issue of respondent’s continued involvement
with his children, ex-wife and ailing father. The respondent
husband is stated to have mooted the idea of separation by
mutual consent, which was not acceptable to the petitioner.
The respondent even submitted a complaint at Police Station
Habibganj and filed a complaint dated 22.07.2022 before the
Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhopal under Section 200 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter “CrPC), alleging
that as a result of constant fights between the parties, the
petitioner has been subjecting the respondent to mental cruelty
by threatening him with dire consequences like taking her own
life and filing false criminal cases against the respondent and
his family. Thus, the respondent had sought appropriate action
against the petitioner and an impartial investigation in future if
the petitioner took any untoward step.
1362 [2024] 12 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

3.2 Thereafter, on 01.08.2022, the respondent filed a divorce petition
bearing RCS(HM) No.1146/2022 before the Family Court,
Bhopal, under Section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
(hereinafter “HMA”). But the same was dismissed as withdrawn
by order dated 16.08.2022. Just before withdrawing the said
divorce petition, the parties filed a second petition for divorce
by mutual consent under Section 13B(1) of HMA, bearing
RCS(HM) No. 1215/2022, on 13.08.2022 before the Family
Court at Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh. The petitioner has alleged
that the respondent had fraudulently obtained her signatures
on this second divorce petition. Be that as it may, the said
petition was also dismissed vide order dated 29.08.2022, on
the ground that the parties had not completed the statutorily
mandated period of separation of one year as per Section
13B(1) of the HMA.
3.3 Subsequently, on 14.09.2022, the respondent filed a third divorce
petition bearing RCS(HM) No. 1379 of 2022 under Section
13(1)(ia) of the HMA before the Principal Judge, Family Court,
Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh, seeking divorce from the petitioner
on the ground of cruelty. The said petition has been contested
by the petitioner and is also the subject matter of the present
transfer petition before this Court.
3.4 Subsequently, the petitioner also filed two criminal cases–
(i) FIR No.586 of 2022 dated 12.12.2022 before the Police
Station Yerwada, District Pune, for offences punishable
under Sections 360, 427, 452, 454 and 457 of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860 (for short, “IPC”) which was filed against
an employee of respondent’s company;
(ii) FIR No. 588 of 2022 dated 15.12.2022 before the Police
Station Yerwada, District Pune, for offences punishable
under Sections 354, 376, 377, 420, 498A, 503, 506, 509
of the IPC and Sections 66 and 67 of the Information
Technology Act, 2000 (“IT Act, 2000”, for short) which was
filed against the respondent and the respondent’s father.
Interestingly, the second FIR dated 15.12.2022 was filed by
the petitioner on the same day when she was scheduled to
appear before the Family Court in the divorce case filed by the
respondent-husband. Pursuant to the second FIR, a Look Out
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 1363

Rinku Baheti v. Sandesh Sharda

Circular (LOC) dated 19.12.2022 was issued from the Bureau
of Investigation against the respondent and consequently, the
respondent was arrested on 25.12.2022 from the international
airport at Mumbai while he was leaving for USA. He was finally
released on regular bail by the Additional Sessions Judge,
Pune by order dated 21.01.2023, resulting in the respondent
spending almost a month in custody.
3.5 Just a few days later, the chain of litigation between the parties
reached the doors of this Court, when the petitioner filed the
present transfer petition before this Court, seeking the transfer
of divorce petition bearing No.RCS(HM) No.1379 of 2022, titled
“Sandesh Sharda versus Rinku Baheti”, pending before the Court
of Principal Judge, Family Court, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh, to
the Court of the Principal Judge, Family Court, District Pune,
Maharashtra. This court, vide order dated 09.02.2023, issued
notice in the matter and granted interim stay on the aforesaid
divorce proceedings pending before the Family Court.
3.6 During the pendency of the present transfer petition, the
respondent has filed the interlocutory application bearing IA
No. 149439/2023 before this Court under Article 142(1) of the
Constitution of India, seeking dissolution of marriage between
the parties on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage
amidst the multiple litigations pending between the parties. The
relief sought by the respondent is as follows:
“a. Allow the present application thereby exercising
the powers conferred by Article 142(1) of the
Constitution of India thereby dissolving the marriage
of the parties and granting a decree of divorce; and/or
b. Pass any such other and further order(s) that this
Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts
and circumstances of the case.”
3.7 It is averred in the said application by the respondent that he
had every intention to spend a good future with the petitioner
but he has not been able to meet the illicit demands of the
petitioner, both monetary and non-monetary. It is alleged that
soon after the marriage, the petitioner had started demanding
unrealistic sums of money from the respondent without providing
any reasons for the same. The petitioner would misbehave with
1364 [2024] 12 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

the respondent, his family, his staff, and not cooperate with the
fact that the respondent had to take care of his octogenarian
father and his children from his first marriage. It was also stated
by the respondent that he had proposed the idea of an amicable
separation to the petitioner but she created an even more hostile
environment and threatened to implicate the respondent and his
family in false criminal cases. Thus, the parties allegedly started
living separately from February-March of 2022. It is stated that
the petitioner asked for a sum of Rs.8 crores in lieu of filing for
divorce by mutual consent, but upon the dismissal of the petition
by the Trial Court, the petitioner’s demand increased to Rs.25
crores, along with threats of criminal complaints. This was all
followed by the FIRs filed by the petitioner and the arrest of
the respondent, thereby fracturing the relations between the
parties beyond repair. Therefore, the respondent has prayed
for a decree of divorce before this Court to be passed in this
transfer petition by exercising jurisdiction under Article 142(1)
of the Constitution.
3.8 The petitioner herein filed her reply to the application filed by
the respondent under Article 142(1) of the Constitution and
opposed the relief prayed by the respondent. The petitioner
stated that there is no irretrievable breakdown of marriage
between the parties and the respondent is seeking to abuse
the extraordinary power of this Court under Article 142(1) of
the Constitution to escape the process of law under the HMA.
The petitioner further stated that she had been constantly
discriminated against by her husband and in-laws since the
time she got married to the respondent, and it was under the
pressure of the respondent’s ex-wife and children that he was
attempting to seek divorce. The respondent had constantly tried
to stall the process of taking the petitioner to USA with him,
thus trying to systematically remove her from his life.
3.9 The father-in-law of the petitioner had also filed a complaint
being Case No.838/B-121/2022-23 under the Maintenance
and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 before
the SDM, Kolar, Bhopal, for eviction of the petitioner from the
matrimonial home at Pune where she was residing. Thus, the
petitioner sought the dismissal of the application filed by the
respondent on the aforesaid grounds.
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 1365

Rinku Baheti v. Sandesh Sharda

3.10 By order dated 12.09.2023, this Court observed that it was just
and necessary that the application under Article 142(1) filed by
the respondent has to be considered in a larger canvas and
not just on the question of whether there is an irretrievable
breakdown of marriage in the instant case. Thus, it was
directed that the case being RCS (HM) No.1379/2022 titled
as “Sandesh Sharda vs. Rinku Baheti” pending on the file of
the Court of Principal Judge, Family Courts, District Bhopal,
Madhya Pradesh be transferred to the Principal Judge, Family
Court, District Pune, Maharashtra, only for the limited purpose
of determining the quantum of alimony or maintenance as well
as other rights which the petitioner-wife would be entitled to,
in the event the application filed by the respondent-husband
for divorce in the main transfer petition is to be allowed. The
Transferee Court at Pune was directed to consider the case
of the respective parties and record the evidence, if any, and
submit a report in the form of an order to this Court for the
purpose of considering the application filed by the respondent
under Article 142(1) of the Constitution.
3.11 In compliance with the aforesaid order of this Court, both the
parties appeared before the Transferee Court, i.e., Family
Court, Pune. The petitioner-wife filed an application before that
court for fixation of alimony commensurate to the assets of the
respondent-husband and further sought monthly maintenance
and residence rights in the matrimonial house at Pune. The
petitioner averred before the Family Court, Pune that the
respondent divorced his first wife and gave her 50% of his net
worth, which was around Rs.500 crores, in addition to a house
in USA, and therefore, the petitioner may be paid permanent
alimony in the same manner as was given to the first wife and
as per the status of the respondent.
3.12 The respondent denied the claims made by the petitioner
in her application for fixation of alimony and stated that the
present marriage between the parties was for a short duration
of only three months, during which no marital assets were
created, unlike his previous marriage where his ex-wife had
contributed to building the assets of the respondent and thus
she was entitled to a stake in those assets. He stated that on
the contrary, the criminal cases filed by the petitioner herein
1366 [2024] 12 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

have led to a further loss of his business. Thus, the respondent
prayed for the permanent alimony to be fixed in the range of
Rs.20 lakhs to 40 lakhs.
3.13 The Family Court, Pune, after a detailed analysis of the material
on record, submitted its report dated 22.03.2024 to this Court.
The learned Judge of the Family Court at Pune concluded that
after taking into consideration the status and standard of living
of the respondent-husband; the income and expenditure of the
petitioner-wife; as well as the fact that the petitioner-wife has
her own house where she can live, permanent alimony of Rs.2
lakhs per month was just and reasonable and if a lumpsum
amount is to be granted, an amount of Rs.10 crores would
be just and proper.

Mediation Proceedings:
4. Pending consideration of the application filed under Article 142(1)
of the Constitution, this Court made further attempts to encourage
the parties to reach an amicable settlement inter se. By order dated
22.04.2024, the matter was referred to the Supreme Court Mediation
Centre. But after a few mediation sessions, the respondent submitted
through Video Conferencing Facility (VC) before us that he was not
interested in pursuing a mediated settlement before the Supreme
Court Mediation Centre and the same was recorded in the order
dated 13.05.2024. However, the parties agreed to attempt a mediated
settlement of the dispute between them before a retired Judge of this
Court. Consequently, Mr. Justice S. Ravindra Bhat, Retired Judge,
Supreme Court of India, was appointed as a mediator in the matter
by the aforesaid order. The Hon’ble mediator held multiple meetings
with the parties, in their presence and through VC, and submitted a
Confidential Report dated 19.07.2024, by which he reported that the
parties have not been able to reach a mutually agreeable settlement.
The same has been perused by this Court. Upon further interaction
with the petitioner and the respondent by this Court on 10.09.2024, it
was categorically stated by the respondent while appearing through
VC before us that he does not intend to engage in any further
discussion with the petitioner.
4.1 In light of the above facts and circumstances, this Court heard
learned senior counsel for the respective parties on IA No.
149439/2023 filed by the respondent-husband under Article
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 1367

Rinku Baheti v. Sandesh Sharda

142(1) of the Constitution of India, seeking a decree of divorce
from the petitioner-wife on the grounds of irretrievable breakdown
of marriage. Depending upon the fate of the said application,
this Court shall consider the original prayer made in the transfer
petition by the petitioner-wife before this Court, i.e., whether the
present transfer petition ought to be allowed or not.

Submissions:
5. On the averments made by the parties against each other in the
captioned transfer petition, the application under Article 142(1), the
application for fixation of alimony and the corresponding replies filed
to those pleadings, learned counsel for the petitioner and respondent
made detailed submissions at the bar.
5.1 The crux of the submissions made by the learned senior counsel
Ms. Meenakshi Arora on behalf of the respondent-husband was
that in light of the numerous litigations pending between the
parties, including the criminal complaints filed by the petitioner
that went to the extent of Look Out Circular (LOC) being issued
against the respondent herein and he also being arrested and
being in custody for almost a month, the relationship between
the parties has fractured beyond repair. The petitioner has gone
to the extent of alleging falsely not just against the respondent,
but his ailing father and his son who resides in USA as well
as the employees of the respondent’s company in the present
dispute. It was submitted that the petitioner’s unwarranted
criminal complaints and actions have made a serious dent on
the reputation of the respondent which has adversely affected
both his personal life as well as his business.
5.2 It was further submitted that even though the parties resided
together only for a brief period of three months and the petitioner
is financially equipped and educated enough to maintain herself,
the respondent is not shying away from his responsibility to
reasonably provide for the future of the petitioner in case of a
separation but the petitioner has been making unreasonable
monetary demands that cannot be accepted by the respondent.
The petitioner is also said to have usurped the flat belonging to
the respondent and his father, despite herself having sufficient
educational qualifications, various fixed deposits, a property
worth Rs.90 lakhs and rental income from that property.
1368 [2024] 12 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

5.3 Thus, the learned counsel for the respondent contended that
the cumulative impact of the ill-intended acts of the petitioner
has been that the relationship between the parties has
irretrievably broken down that cannot be cemented together
again and therefore respondent intends to put an end to the
mental, physical, emotional and financial harassment caused
to him by the petitioner and consequently requests this Court
to exercise its power under Article 142(1) of the Constitution
and grant a decree of divorce and a reasonable permanent
alimony to the petitioner.
5.4 Per contra, learned senior counsel for the petitioner Sri N.K.
Modi contended that the application of the respondent under
Article 142(1) of the Constitution is wholly misconceived. That
the exercise of power under Article 142(1) of the Constitution is
extraordinary and wide and ought not be used in cases where
the underlying facts are in dispute and have to be factually
determined after a fair trial. It was submitted that the parties have
happily lived together after marriage. Contrary to what is being
averred by the respondent, it was submitted that the parties have
remained in touch and lived together after marriage for a period
of almost thirteen months, i.e., from 31.07.2021 to 31.08.2022,
when the petitioner left for Kota. Thus, the petitioner contends
that the respondent was in touch with the petitioner throughout
and was maintaining cordial relations and is seeking a divorce
only on paper so as to satisfy his son and his father. It was further
submitted that the petitioner is opposed to a decree of divorce,
as that would leave her with societal stigma of being divorced
twice. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that
there is still a fair chance of reconciliation between the parties
as she wants to remain married. Therefore, he prayed for the
dismissal of the application filed by the respondent herein.
5.5 It was also submitted that in case this Court decides to grant a
decree of divorce by exercising jurisdiction under Article 142(1),
then the petitioner may be permitted to continue her residence
in the matrimonial home at Pune, which is in the name of the
father of the respondent and be further granted a permanent
alimony equitable to the amount given to the first wife of the
respondent. The petitioner’s prayer is based on the contention
that the respondent is a powerful man of means and position,
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 1369

Rinku Baheti v. Sandesh Sharda

who is not having any other financial burdens since he has
divorced his first wife, his two children are settled in USA and
his 85-year old father is a wealthy person with multiple sources
of income, on the other hand, the petitioner is a lady with limited
resources available for her survival, who is running from pillar
to post for justice and has been abandoned by her own parents
because of the ongoing marital dispute. Therefore, the interest
and welfare of the petitioner may be borne in mind by this Court
was the submission of learned senior counsel for the petitioner.

Article 142(1) of the Constitution of India:
6. Before considering the facts and issues involved in the case, it is
pertinent to refer to Article 142 of the Constitution of India, which
reads as follows:
“142. Enforcement of decrees and orders of the Supreme
Court and orders as to discovery, etc.—(1) The Supreme
Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such
decree or make such order as is necessary for doing
complete justice in any cause or matter pending before
it, and any decree so passed or order so made shall
be enforceable throughout the territory of India in such
manner as may be prescribed by or under any law made
by Parliament and, until provision in that behalf is so made,
in such manner as the President may by order prescribe.
(2) Subject to the provisions of any law made in this behalf
by Parliament, the Supreme Court shall, as respects
the whole of the territory of India, have all and every
power to make any order for the purpose of securing the
attendance of any person, the discovery or production of
any documents, or the investigation or punishment of any
contempt of itself.”
(underlining by us)

6.1 The aforesaid Article empowers the Supreme Court to exercise
its jurisdiction to pass such decree or make such order as is
necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter
pending before it and any decree so passed or order so made
shall be enforceable throughout the territory of India in such
1370 [2024] 12 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

manner as may be prescribed by or under any law made by
Parliament and until provision in that behalf is so made, in
such manner as the President may by order prescribe. The
expression “such order as is necessary for doing complete
justice” has a wide amplitude and scope and empowers the
Supreme Court to make any order as may be necessary for
doing complete justice in a case before it. Thus, the object
of exercising such power is ultimately to do complete justice
between the parties. Usually, when the Supreme Court moulds
the relief while ensuring that no injustice is caused, power is
exercised under Article 142(1) for doing complete justice in
the matter. Sometimes, while laying down the law in a matter,
a direction could be issued by granting relief in a particular
way in that particular case so as to safeguard the interest of
the parties. The Supreme Court would also look into equitable
consideration while passing such orders given the facts and
circumstances of a case, so as to further the cause of justice.
6.2 In Shilpa Sailesh vs. Varun Sreenivasan, (2023) 5 SCR 165
(“Shilpa Sailesh”), a Constitution Bench of this Court speaking
through Sanjiv Khanna, J. (as the present Chief Justice of India
then was) observed in paragraph 19 as under:
“19. Exercise of jurisdiction under Article 142(1)
of the Constitution of India by this Court in such
cases is clearly permissible to do ‘complete justice’
to a ‘cause or matter’. We should accept that this
Court can pass an order or decree which a family
court, trial court or High Court can pass. As per
Article 142(1) of the Constitution of India, a decree
passed or an order made by this Court is executable
throughout the territory of India. Power of this Court
under Articles 136 and 142(1) of the Constitution of
India will certainly embrace and enswathe this power
to do ‘complete justice’, even when the main case/
proceeding is pending before the family court, the
trial court or another judicial forum. A question or
issue of lack of subject-matter jurisdiction does not
arise. Settlements in matrimonial matters invariably
end multiple legal proceedings, including criminal
proceedings in different courts and at diverse
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 1371

Rinku Baheti v. Sandesh Sharda

locations. Necessarily, in such cases, the parties
have to move separate applications in multiple
courts, including the jurisdictional High Court, for
appropriate relief and closure, and disposal and/or
dismissal of cases. This puts burden on the courts
in the form of listing, paper work, compliance with
formalities, verification etc. Parallelly, parties have to
bear the cost, appear before several forums/courts
and the final orders get delayed causing anxiety
and apprehension. In this sense, when this Court
exercises the power under Article 142(1) of the
Constitution of India, it assists and aids the cause
of justice.”

Shilpa Sailesh:
7. The issue regarding invocation of the extraordinary powers of this
Court under Article 142(1) of the Constitution of India in cases of
marital disputes is no more res-integra and has been settled by
a Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of Shilpa Sailesh.
The power to grant a decree of divorce under Article 142(1) of the
Constitution is exercisable by the Courts when, in the opinion of this
Court there is complete and irretrievable breakdown of marriage, in
spite of the other spouse opposing such prayer. Three substantial
questions of law were formulated for consideration in Shilpa Sailesh.
The third question was:
“Whether this Court can grant divorce in exercise of power
under Article 142(1) of the Constitution of India when there
is complete and irretrievable breakdown of marriage in
spite of the other spouses opposing the prayer?”
Learned senior counsel for both the parties have placed reliance
on the said judgment of this Court, although citing different parts
and paragraphs.
7.1 Learned senior counsel for the respondent has drawn our
attention to the following paragraph of the judgment in Shilpa
Sailesh:
“33. Having said so, we wish to clearly state that
grant of divorce on the ground of irretrievable
breakdown of marriage by this Court is not a matter
1372 [2024] 12 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

of right, but a discretion which is to be exercised
with great care and caution, keeping in mind several
factors ensuring that ‘complete justice’ is done to
both parties. It is obvious that this Court should be
fully convinced and satisfied that the marriage is
totally unworkable, emotionally dead and beyond
salvation and, therefore, dissolution of marriage is
the right solution and the only way forward. That
the marriage has irretrievably broken down is to
be factually determined and firmly established. For
this, several factors are to be considered such as
the period of time the parties had cohabited after
marriage; when the parties had last cohabited; the
nature of allegations made by the parties against each
other and their family members; the orders passed in
the legal proceedings from time to time, cumulative
impact on the personal relationship; whether, and how
many attempts were made to settle the disputes by
intervention of the court or through mediation, and
when the last attempt was made, etc. The period of
separation should be sufficiently long, and anything
above six years or more will be a relevant factor. But
these facts have to be evaluated keeping in view the
economic and social status of the parties, including
their educational qualifications, whether the parties
have any children, their age, educational qualification,
and whether the other spouse and children are
dependent, in which event how and in what manner
the party seeking divorce intends to take care and
provide for the spouse or the children. Question of
custody and welfare of minor children, provision for
fair and adequate alimony for the wife, and economic
rights of the children and other pending matters,
if any, are relevant considerations. We would not
like to codify the factors so as to curtail exercise of
jurisdiction under Article 142(1) of the Constitution of
India, which is situation specific. Some of the factors
mentioned can be taken as illustrative, and worthy
of consideration.”
(underlining by us)
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 1373

Rinku Baheti v. Sandesh Sharda

7.2 On the contrary, learned senior counsel for the petitioner has
placed reliance on the following paragraph of the judgment,
wherein the Court answered the question, whether, this Court
can grant divorce in exercise of power under Article 142(1) of
the Constitution of India when there is complete and irretrievable
breakdown of marriage in spite of the other spouse opposing
the prayer:
“42. …This question is also answered in the affirmative,
inter alia, holding that this Court, in exercise of power
under Article 142(1) of the Constitution of India, has
the discretion to dissolve the marriage on the ground
of its irretrievable breakdown. This discretionary
power is to be exercised to do ‘complete justice’ to the
parties, wherein this Court is satisfied that the facts
established show that the marriage has completely
failed and there is no possibility that the parties will
cohabit together, and continuation of the formal legal
relationship is unjustified. The Court, as a court of
equity, is required to also balance the circumstances
and the background in which the party opposing the
dissolution is placed.”
(underlining by us)

7.3 The petitioner has further relied on the following part from the
Shilpa Sailesh judgment to bring our attention to the caution
that needs to be exercised in granting a decree of divorce
without undergoing trial:
“41. Lastly, we must express our opinion on whether a
party can directly canvass before this Court the ground
of irretrievable breakdown by filing a writ petition under
Article 32 of the Constitution. In Poonam v. Sumit
Tanwar, a two judges’ bench of this Court has rightly
held that any such attempt must be spurned and not
accepted, as the parties should not be permitted to
file a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution
of India, or for that matter under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India before the High Court, and seek
divorce on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of
1374 [2024] 12 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

marriage. The reason is that the remedy of a person
aggrieved by the decision of the competent judicial
forum is to approach the superior tribunal/ forum for
redressal of his/her grievance. The parties should not
be permitted to circumvent the procedure by resorting
to the writ jurisdiction under Article 32 or 226 of the
Constitution of India, as the case may be…”
7.4 Our attention was further drawn to the following part of the
aforesaid judgment to highlight the relevance of the facts of the
case while exercising the power under Article 142(1):
“20. However, there is a difference between existence
of a power, and exercise of that power in a given
case. Existence of power is generally a matter of
law, whereas exercise of power is a mixed question
of law and facts. Even when the power to pass a
decree of divorce by mutual consent exists and can
be exercised by this Court under Article 142(1) of
the Constitution of India, when and in which of the
cases the power should be exercised to do ‘complete
justice’ in a ‘cause or matter’ is an issue that has to
be determined independent of existence of the power.
This discretion has to be exercised on the basis of
the factual matrix in the particular case, evaluated
on objective criteria and factors, without ignoring the
objective of the statutory provisions.”

Other orders/judgments on irretrievable breakdown of marriage:
8. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has further placed reliance
on a few recent judgments of this Court, wherein the exercise of the
power under Article 142(1) of the Constitution for granting a decree
of divorce on the grounds of irretrievable breakdown of marriage was
denied by this Court. Reliance is placed on a recent judgment of
this Court in Delma Lubna Coelho vs. Edmond Clint Fernandes,
(2023) 4 SCR 473, wherein the decree of divorce was denied by
observing that the parties had stayed together for only forty days
and it takes time to settle down in a marriage. Further reliance is
placed on Nirmal Singh Panesar vs. Paramjit Kaur Panesar @
Ajinder Kaur Panesar, (2023) 13 SCR 832, wherein the exercise
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 1375

Rinku Baheti v. Sandesh Sharda

of power under Article 142(1) was refused by this Court to dissolve
the marriage of an octogenarian couple, on the ground that the 82-
year old wife is still ready and willing to take care of her husband
and does not wish to leave him alone at this stage of his life and
does not want to die with the stigma of being a divorcee. There have
been other similar judgments cited by the learned counsel for the
petitioner, but the same are not being mentioned here because those
rulings were prior to the final settlement of the law on irretrievable
breakdown of marriage by the Constitution Bench of this Court in
Shilpa Sailesh.
8.1 The exercise of power by this Court under Article 142(1) to grant
a decree of divorce and the factors to be considered while doing
so have varied with facts and circumstances of each case. In
the case of Rakesh Raman vs. Kavita, (2023) 3 SCR 552, it
was observed as follows:
“15. The multiple Court battles between them and
the repeated failures in mediation and conciliation
is at least testimony of this fact that no bond now
survive between the couple, it is indeed a marriage
which has broken down irretrievably.
x x x x
16. … Irretrievable breakdown of a marriage may
not be a ground for dissolution of marriage, under
the Hindu Marriage Act, but cruelty is. A marriage
can be dissolved by a decree of divorce, inter alia,
on the ground when the other party “has, after the
solemnization of the marriage treated the petitioner
with cruelty”. In our considered opinion, a marital
relationship which has only become more bitter and
acrimonious over the years, does nothing but inflicts
cruelty on both the sides. To keep the façade of this
broken marriage alive would be doing injustice to
both the parties. A marriage which has broken down
irretrievably, in our opinion spells cruelty to both
the parties, as in such a relationship each party is
treating the other with cruelty. It is therefore a ground
for dissolution of marriage under Section 13 (1) (ia)
of the Act.”
1376 [2024] 12 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

In light of the above observations, this Court had granted a
decree of divorce and dissolved the marriage between the
parties in that case.
8.2 The aforementioned position has since then been followed
by this Court in several cases while exercising power under
Article 142(1) of the Constitution. For instance, in a recent
judgment delivered by a co-ordinate bench of this Court in Vikas
Kanaujia vs. Sarita, (2024) 7 SCR 933, this Court granted
the decree of divorce on account of irretrievable breakdown
of marriage in light of the overall facts and circumstances of
the case, even though the wife therein had submitted that she
was willing to live with the husband believing in the sanctity
of marriage.
8.3 Similarly, in the case of Prakashchandra Joshi vs. Kuntal
Prakashchandra Joshi @ Kuntal Visanji Shah, (2024) 1
SCR 697, a co-ordinate bench of this Court observed that it
was a case of irretrievable breakdown of marriage as there
was no possibility of the couple staying together and used the
powers under Article 142(1) to dissolve the marriage between
the parties, despite the fact that the wife in that case chose
not to appear in the proceedings before this court and was
proceeded ex-parte.
8.4 Another co-ordinate bench of this Court in the case of Vineet
Taneja vs. Ritu Johari, vide order dated 22.07.2024 passed
in M.A. No.2009 of 2023 in SLP (C) No.3667 of 2023, MANU/
SCOR/93862/2024, granted a decree of dissolution of marriage
taking into consideration the irretrievable breakdown of the
marriage between the parties, on the miscellaneous application
filed by the wife seeking dissolution of the marriage in exercise
of powers under Article 142(1) of the Constitution of India and
the husband had vehemently opposed the application.
8.5 The aforesaid decisions have followed the proposition of law
confirmed by the constitution bench in the case of Shilpa
Sailesh. However, even before the said judgment, this Court
had not hesitated from dissolving the marriage on the ground
of irretrievable breakdown where the relationship between the
parties had deteriorated to a level that no reconciliation appeared
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 1377

Rinku Baheti v. Sandesh Sharda

possible and where such a dissolution was necessary to do
complete justice between the parties in exercise of power under
Article 142(1) of the Constitution of India, even though one of
the spouses had opposed such a prayer or had shown interest
in continuing with the marital bond.
8.6 Earlier, a two-judge bench of this Court, in the case of R. Srinivas
Kumar vs. R. Shametha, (2019) 12 SCR 873, dealt with the
submission of the wife that unless there is a consent by both
the parties, even in exercise of powers under Article 142(1) of
the Constitution of India, the marriage cannot be dissolved on
the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage, by making
the following observations:
“6. Now so far as submission on behalf of the
respondent wife that unless there is a consent by
both the parties, even in exercise of powers under
Article 142 of the Constitution of India the marriage
cannot be dissolved on the ground of irretrievable
breakdown of marriage is concerned, the aforesaid
has no substance. If both the parties to the marriage
agree for separation permanently and/or consent for
divorce, in that case, certainly both the parties can
move the competent court for a decree of divorce
by mutual consent. Only in a case where one of the
parties do not agree and give consent, only then
the powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of
India are required to be invoked to do the substantial
justice between the parties, considering the facts and
circumstances of the case. However, at the same
time, the interest of the wife is also required to be
protected financially so that she may not have to
suffer financially in future and she may not have to
depend upon others.”
(underlining by us)

8.7 Another observation of this court on the same issue, in
Munish Kakkar vs. Nidhi Kakkar, (2019) 15 SCR 169, reads
as under:
1378 [2024] 12 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

“18. No doubt there is no consent of the respondent.
But there is also, in real terms, no willingness of the
parties, including of the respondent to live together.
There are only bitter memories and angst against each
other. This angst has got extended in the case of the
respondent to somehow not permit the appellant to
get a decree of divorce and “live his life”, forgetting
that both parties would be able to live their lives in a
better manner, separately, as both parties suffer from
an obsession with legal proceedings, as reflected
from the submissions before us.”
8.8 The aforesaid judgments and observations were also followed
by this court in the case of N. Rajendran vs. S. Valli, (2022)
16 SCR 498, and it was held that it would be in the interest of
justice and to do complete justice to the parties that an order
should be passed dissolving the marriage between the parties.
8.9 In the case of K. Srinivas Rao vs. D.A. Deepa, (2013) 2 SCR
126, the wife had made scurrilous, vulgar and defamatory
statements against the husband in her complaint to the
women’s cell of the police. This Court speaking through
Ranjana Desai, J. held that such statements cannot be
explained away by stating that it was made because the wife
was anxious to go back to the husband as the same is not
the way to win the husband back. It was held that the wife
had caused mental cruelty to the husband and the marriage
had irretrievably broken down. In light of the fact that the
husband was not willing to reside with the wife, even if the
court refuses a decree of divorce to the husband, there are
hardly any chances of the wife leading a happy life with the
husband because a lot of bitterness had been created by the
conduct of the wife. Thus, this Court accordingly granted a
decree of divorce.
8.10 In the case of Anil Kumar Jain vs. Maya Jain, (2009) 14 SCR
90, this court held that the stand of the wife that she wants
to live separately from her husband but is not agreeable to a
mutual divorce was not acceptable and found it a fit case for
exercise of the powers vested in the court under Article 142(1)
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 1379

Rinku Baheti v. Sandesh Sharda

of the Constitution. Thus, the court accepted the petition for
grant of mutual divorce under Section 13B of the HMA.
8.11 Therefore, there now remains no doubt that this Court has
the power to grant a decree of divorce on the grounds of
irretrievable breakdown of marriage by invoking its powers
under Article 142(1) of the Constitution. But what constitutes
an irretrievable breakdown has to be determined in each case
by undertaking a factual analysis of the case and using judicial
discretion in light of several non-exhaustive factors laid down
by this Court in the judgment of Shilpa Sailesh. This Court
has to reach the conclusion that the marriage has “completely
failed” and there is no possibility of the parties cohabiting
together as husband and wife, and that the continuation of
the formal legal relationship of marriage is unjustified lacking
in substance and content.
8.12 Unlike a divorce proceeding before the Family Court, where the
Court is bound by the fault-divorce provisions contained in the
HMA and other allied legislations and thus has to necessarily
appreciate the evidence to give a finding about whether a party
had indeed committed the alleged matrimonial offence or not,
this Court while dealing with an application seeking divorce
under Article 142(1) of the Constitution can depart from the
said procedure as well as the substantive laws by acting as
a problem solver and balancing out the equities between the
conflicting claims. This Court is therefore not required to look
deep into the veracity of the detailed allegations made by the
parties against each other to find as to who is at fault, but is
required to take a holistic view on the relationship between the
parties and conclude if there is an irretrievable breakdown of
the marriage and the parties have no scope of reconciliation.
Thus, the thrust of considering an application under Article
142(1) of the Constitution is in order to ascertain whether there
is an irretrievable breakdown of marriage between the parties
and as a result, it is in their interest that they should part ways
by passing a decree of divorce by exercising jurisdiction under
Article 142(1) of the Constitution and thereby doing complete
justice between the parties.
1380 [2024] 12 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

8.13 Divorce being sought by one of the spouses on the basis of
fault committed on the part of the other spouse is dependant
on proof of the matrimonial offence as delineated under Section
13 of the HMA. By contrast under Section 13B(1) of the HMA,
a petition for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce
could be presented by both the parties together on the ground
that they have been living separately for a period of one year
or more, that they have not been able to live together and
that they have mutually agreed that the marriage should be
dissolved. If the aforesaid three ingredients are established,
then on the basis of sub-section (2) of Section 13B of HMA,
after hearing the parties and after making such inquiry as the
Court thinks fit, a decree of divorce declaring the marriage
to be dissolved with effect from the date of the decree could
be passed by the Court and on compliance of the conditions
mentioned therein. In our view, if the ingredients of sub-section
(1) of Section 13B of HMA are established by both spouses, it
has to be construed as an instance of irretrievable breakdown
of marriage inasmuch as the parties in unison state that there
has been an actual separation between them for a period of
one year or more and they have not been able to live together
and they have mutually agreed that the marriage should be
dissolved. Sub-section (1) of Section 13B of HMA has to be
contrasted with Section 13 of the HMA, inasmuch as the parties
to the marriage would neither have to allege anything against
each other nor would have to prove fault on the part of the
other spouse before seeking divorce and that is why, it is called
divorce by mutual consent. The only aspect on which the Court
has to be satisfied is that the marriage had been solemnised
between the parties and the averments in the petitions are true
and the Court is satisfied that the consent has been arrived
at out of free volition of the parties and without any coercion
or undue influence exercised by any of them on the other.
8.14 Having perused the dicta of this Court particularly in Shilpa
Sailesh, we find that the grant of divorce on the ground of
irretrievable breakdown of marriage is on the basis of exercise
of discretion by this Court for doing complete justice between
the parties. Thus, on the basis of the application filed by one of
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 1381

Rinku Baheti v. Sandesh Sharda

the parties to the marriage, he or she cannot seek such divorce
as a matter of right. It is only when this Court is satisfied and
convinced that there is a deadlock in the marriage which cannot
be saved and the only solution for the parties is to move on
independently by putting an end to their marital ties that the
decree for divorce on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of
marriage can be granted. In Shilpa Sailesh as well as other
judgments, several factors have been adumbrated which could
be considered for the purpose of exercising discretion one
way or the other, such as the nature of allegations against
each other by the parties and their family members; the orders
passed in the legal proceedings from time to time; the period
of time that parties have spent together; the cumulative impact
on the personal relationship; the attempts made for settlement
of disputes; the period of separation between the parties being
illustrative factors. The socio-economic status of the parties, their
educational qualifications; their age; whether there are children
born out of the wedlock and as to how the parties would have
to be provided for in the event of separation and such other
considerations have been particularised in the said judgment.
8.15 Most importantly, we find that the exercise of discretion under
Article 142(1) of the Constitution of India to do complete justice
to the parties is because there is no possibility of the parties
cohabiting together and continuing their marital relationship.
It is also apparent that in the usual course one of the parties
would have sought for dissolution of marriage on the basis
of one of the grounds mentioned in the law such as Section
13 of the HMA. Alternatively, the parties can jointly seek for
dissolution of their marriage by a decree of divorce by mutual
consent. However, the ground of divorce on the premise that
there is irretrievable breakdown of marriage and in order to do
complete justice to the parties on the anvil of Article 142(1) of
the Constitution of India is an avenue for dissolution of marriage
by a decree of divorce granted by this Court by exercising its
powers under Article 142(1) of the Constitution.
8.16 Hence, in the instant case, we need to consider the factual
basis before arriving at a decision one way or the other on
the application filed by the respondent herein.
1382 [2024] 12 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

8.17 In the instant case, since earlier, the petitions said to have
been filed under Section 13(1)(ia) by the respondent herein
and sub-section (1) of Section 13B of HMA filed by both parties
were unsuccessful inasmuch as the same came to be closed
for their respective reasons and the premise that there had
not been separation between the parties for one year or more,
the present application filed by the respondent under Article
142(1) of the Constitution seeking a decree of divorce on the
ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage would have to
be considered on its merits.

Analysis of the facts of this case:
9. In the instant case, the petitioner as well as the respondent had
registered on Jeevansathi.com and after conclusion of divorce
proceedings with his first wife, the respondent and the petitioner
herein had a roka ceremony on 18.11.2020 at Pune. Thereafter, the
engagement ceremony was performed at Pune on 30.07.2021 and
the wedding took place on 31.07.2021. Thereafter, from 01.08.2021
onwards, the parties resided together at a hotel in Pune, at the
matrimonial home in Pune, Indore, Bhopal and at Kota where parents
of the petitioner reside. On 30.08.021, the parties left Mumbai for
Maldives and on return they lived at their matrimonial home at Pune
and thereafter visited Nasik, Jalgaon, Indore and Bhopal. Later, the
parties returned to Pune. On 10.11.2021, the respondent flew from
Mumbai to USA and the petitioner remained in Pune and thereafter
returned to Bhopal. On 23.01.2022, the petitioner returned to Pune
as the respondent came to Pune from USA on 25.01.2022. They
lived at Pune and visited Jaipur, Kota, Pushkar and returned to
Bhopal. On 08.03.2022, respondent left for USA. On 12.06.2022,
respondent returned from USA to Bhopal and on 17.06.2022, the
birthday of the petitioner was celebrated by the respondent and they
lived together at Bhopal.
9.1 It is an undisputed fact that the respondent-husband in the
instant case has already filed three divorce petitions before
the Family Court, out of which, the first was dismissed as
withdrawn; the second filed by both parties was dismissed for
being pre-mature and the third is presently pending adjudication
which is sought to be transferred to the Family Court, Pune
by the petitioner. Presently, the application filed under Article
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 1383

Rinku Baheti v. Sandesh Sharda

142(1) of the Constitution is under consideration. The details
of these cases, along with the other cases filed by the parties,
inter se, are as under:

S. No. Particulars

Cases Filed by Petitioner-Wife

1. FIR No. 586/2022, under Section 506 of IPC against an employee
of the respondent husband for changing the locks of the matrimonial
home and theft of the car in possession of the petitioner wife.

2. FIR No.588/2022, under Sections 354, 376, 377, 420, 498A, 503,
506, 509 of IPC and Sections 66 and 67 of the IT Act, 2000 against
the respondent-husband and the father-in-law.

3. Non-cognizable report under Sections 499 and 500 of IPC, against
father-in-law of petitioner.

4. Present Transfer Petition before this Court.

Cases Filed by Respondent-Husband

5. Criminal Complaint No.3070/2022 before Judicial Magistrate First
Class, Bhopal under Section 200 CrPC for offences under Sections
327, 506, 509, 511 of IPC dated 22.07.2022.

6. 1st Divorce Petition bearing RCS(HM) No.1146/2022 which was
dismissed as withdrawn

7. 2nd Divorce Petition by mutual consent bearing RCS(HM) No.1215/2022
which was dismissed

8. 3rd Divorce Petition bearing RCS(HM) No.1379/2022, which is subject
matter of present proceedings

9. Application for Regular Bail before the Sessions Court, Pune [Criminal
Bail Application No.144/2023]

10. Application under Section 340 CrPC before this Court in the present
case, alleging perjury.

11. Application under Article 142(1) of the Constitution of India before this
Court for seeking divorce on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of
marriage which is under consideration.

Cases Filed by Father-in-Law of Petitioner

12. Complaint, bearing Case No.838/B-121/2022-23 by father-in-law
under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens
Act, 2007 for eviction of the petitioner from the matrimonial home.

13. Criminal Writ Petition No.918/2023 before the High Court of Judicature
at Bombay, seeking to quash the FIR No.588 of 2022 and consequential
criminal proceedings.
1384 [2024] 12 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

9.2 As can be observed from the above table, the parties and their
family members have been involved in numerous litigations
during the brief period of their marital relationship. The
petitioner-wife filed FIR No.586/2022 against the respondent-
husband and her father-in-law, detailing incidents of physical,
sexual, mental and emotional abuse that she was subjected to
during the period of her marriage and thus alleging commission
of grave offences like cheating, cruelty, rape and unnatural
offences under the IPC. Though the son of the respondent-
husband from his first marriage was not made an accused in
the said FIR, allegations of conspiracy were made against him
as well. In addition to the said FIR, the petitioner has registered
another case for criminal intimidation vide FIR No.586/2022
against one Mr. Paresh Somani, who is not just an employee
in the respondent’s company but also the grandson of the
respondent’s aunt. Apart from these two FIRs, the petitioner
had admittedly also filed a non-cognizable report against her
father-in-law for the offence of defamation. The filing of the
complaints by the petitioner reflects her negative feelings
towards the respondent and his family and the unfortunate
state of the marital relationship between the parties is quite
evident irrespective of the fate of her criminal complaints and
her allegations.
9.3 On the other hand, the respondent filed a criminal complaint
against the petitioner before the Magistrate, alleging criminal
intimidation and cruelty on the part of the petitioner and detailing
as to how the petitioner has threatened to kill herself and
falsely implicate the respondent and his family for the same.
The respondent thereafter has filed three divorce petitions
before the Family Court seeking dissolution of his marriage
with the petitioner. The fate of those petitions has been
already discussed hereinabove. There is also an application
under Section 340 of the CrPC filed in the present case by
the respondent, being IA No.52377 of 2024, seeking the
prosecution of the petitioner for the offence of perjury.
9.4 The respondent was also arrested pursuant to an FIR filed
by the petitioner and had to file a bail application before the
Sessions Court and spent almost a month in custody before
he was released on bail. The filing of cases by the respondent
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 1385

Rinku Baheti v. Sandesh Sharda

also unambiguously reflects the bitterness that has seeped
into the marital relationship.
9.5 In addition, the octogenarian father-in-law of the petitioner
had also filed a complaint under the relevant provisions of the
Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act,
2007, seeking the eviction of the petitioner from the matrimonial
house. The order for eviction was granted in favour of the
father-in-law of the petitioner, but it was submitted that the
matter is still pending adjudication in the appellate forum. The
father-in-law, being one of the accused in the FIR filed by the
petitioner, was also constrained to approach the Bombay High
Court through a criminal writ petition seeking to quash the
FIR filed by the petitioner. Thus, the aged father-in-law has
also been put under considerable difficulty due to the marital
dispute between the petitioner and the respondent, which also
has an obvious impact on the mind of the respondent in how
he perceives the acts of the petitioner and his relationship
with her.
9.6 Be that as it may, on 29.06.2022, respondent had consulted
his advocate to draft a divorce petition and also a private
complaint. This is less than one year from the date of their
marriage and after living together only for a few months.
Thereafter, after visiting Indore and Bhopal, respondent left for
USA on 10.07.2022. Respondent returned from USA to India
on 25.07.2022. 31.07.2022 was their first wedding anniversary
and on the very next day, i.e., on 01.08.2022, divorce petition
bearing No.1146/2022 was filed before the Family Court at
Bhopal by the respondent. On 08.08.2022, petitioner received
the summons in the aforesaid case. On 13.08.2022, the said
divorce petition was withdrawn and a second divorce petition
bearing No.1215/2022 was filed under Section 13B of HMA.
Even while respondent was in India, second divorce petition
bearing No.1215/2022 was dismissed and the petitioner left for
her parental home at Kota on 31.08.2022. This was because
the statutory period of separation for a year had not been
complied. Shortly thereafter, on 03.09.2022, a third divorce
petition was filed by the respondent before the Family Court
at Bhopal. Respondent also sought revocation of the USA
visa which had been applied for the petitioner.
1386 [2024] 12 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

9.7 The aforesaid facts would indicate that on very next day after
year of marriage, the respondent filed the first divorce petition
which was dismissed and simultaneously, a second joint petition
was filed which was also dismissed due to non-compliance
with Section 13B(1) of HMA. It was followed by a third divorce
petition. Thus, within a span of 34 days, the respondent filed
three divorce petitions.
9.8 The aforesaid events would clearly indicate that there was
no meaningful relationship between the parties inasmuch
as the respondent was making endeavours to put an end to
his marriage with the petitioner by filing successive divorce
petitions. Hence, the intention of the respondent was not to
continue his marital relationship with the petitioner.
9.9 Further, the petitioner herein filed her first complaint against the
employee of the respondent’s company and also respondent’s
aunt’s grandson under Section 506 of the IPC which was
converted into the FIR bearing No.586/2022 dated 12.12.2022.
She filed a complaint against her father-in-law on 25.11.2022
and a complaint against the respondent on 15.12.2022 which
was converted as FIR No.588/2022 under Sections 420, 354,
503, 506, 509, 376, 377 and 498A of the IPC. On the said
complaint, the respondent was arrested from the Mumbai
Airport on the basis of a look out Circular and was in custody
for a month. It is only after seeking bail that he could manage
to leave the shores of India for USA.
9.10 Thus, what emerges from the aforesaid facts are that:
i) the marriage between the parties did not really take off
at all;
ii) there was no continuous cohabitation between the parties
at a place. They were in fact moving from place to place
and from hotel to hotel and the respondent was akin to
a “visiting spouse”;
iii) It appears that in a short duration of time that parties
were with each other, neither was there any cordiality,
nor was there any mutual love and affection or respect
for each other. The first year of the marriage lapsed
owing to the respondent travelling to USA and returning
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 1387

Rinku Baheti v. Sandesh Sharda

thereafter and the petitioner remaining either at Bhopal
or at Pune without there being a continuous cohabitation.
iv) That soon thereafter, there were petitions for divorce filed
by the respondent and a petition for divorce by mutual
consent filed by both parties, as well as complaints filed
by the petitioner against the respondent and his father
The aforesaid facts would give us an impression that there
was hardly any cordiality or meaningful marital relationship
which emerged from the marriage of the parties.
9.11 In light of the above, it is the respondent who has filed the
present application under Article 142(1) seeking a decree
of divorce. Thus, the intention of the respondent is clear
inasmuch as he does not wish to continue his marital ties with
the petitioner. This is further crystallised by the categorical
submission of the respondent before us that he does not
want to engage in any more discussions with the petitioner,
after having gone through multiple rounds of court directed
mediations in an attempt to reach a mutually agreeable
settlement.
9.12 The petitioner seems to think that while on one hand, she can
continue to make allegations against the respondent and in the
same breath intend to continue her marital relationship with the
respondent. If the petitioner had difficulties with respondent in
the short time that she has lived with him, then it is strange
that the petitioner also wants to continue her relationship with
the respondent.
9.13 We therefore do not find any substance in contention of
learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner that the
petitioner intends to continue her marital relationship with the
respondent. At the same time, having filed criminal complaints
against him and his father and having gotten him arrested
at the Mumbai Airport and he, being on bail, the petitioner
intends to remain married with the respondent! The aforesaid
events have definitely deterred the respondent from continuing
with his marital relationship with the petitioner. It is noted that
even within a year of his marriage with the petitioner, he had
consulted an advocate and had sought divorce.
1388 [2024] 12 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

9.14 The petitioner, on the other hand, has taken contradictory
positions with respect to her intentions about her marriage.
On one hand, she has stated that she has been a dutiful wife
and has happily resided with the respondent-husband, but
simultaneously she has filed a criminal complaint against the
respondent-husband, alleging serious offences like cruelty,
outraging of modesty, rape, cheating, etc., vide FIR No.588
of 2022 dated 15.12.2022 before the Police Station Yerwada,
District Pune. There was a ‘Look Out Circular’ issued against
the respondent and he was in fact arrested at the Mumbai
Airport on 25.12.2022 just while departing for USA. This was
at the instance of the petitioner herein. Respondent was
taken into custody and had to seek bail after over a month of
police custody. It is difficult to fathom as to how the petitioner
can reasonably expect her spouse to continue in a cordial
marital relationship with her, when she has filed a criminal
case against him, got a “Look Out Ciruclar” issued against
him, and even got him arrested.
9.15 Further, on one hand, petitioner has sought the dismissal of
the respondent’s application for divorce under Article 142(1)
on the ground that she wishes to continue the marriage, while
in the same breath, she has demanded a huge sum of money
as permanent alimony equalling the share received by the
respondent’s ex-wife.
9.16 In the present case, it is evident from the averments and
submissions as well as our interactions with the parties that
the petitioner’s criminal complaint, among other things, has left
an incurable scar on the relationship between the parties. The
parties have had a brief period of relationship, which can be
deciphered even without getting into the contrasting allegations
of how many months they have exactly resided together. Soon
after a year of marriage, the respondent-husband had filed
the police complaint and the first petition for divorce, which
means that the relationship between them had deteriorated
by then. For almost two years since then, they have been
embroiled in disputes before various courts. The parties have
gone through multiple rounds of mediation and have not
been able to arrive at a mutually agreeable settlement. The
respondent-husband has appeared before this Court and has
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 1389

Rinku Baheti v. Sandesh Sharda

categorially stated that he does not wish to enter into any
further discussions with the petitioner-wife. The petitioner has
also pursued her application and contention regarding the
fixation of permanent alimony and has vehemently argued that
the respondent is a man of means and she should be given
alimony commensurate to both the status of the respondent
and the amount received by the ex-wife of the respondent,
all of which has been termed as being an extortion by the
respondent-husband. In the said scenario, we do not think
that there is any chance for the parties to now reconcile their
differences and lead a normal married life hereinafter. Forcing
the parties to now move back to the Family Court and pursue
their legal remedies, or to compel them to carry on in the
present marital bond for the sake of formality, would amount
to bestowing unwarranted hardship on the already sparring
spouses. Both options, in our view, are unviable and cannot
be ordered in the present case.

Criminal proceedings between spouses and their impact on
marital ties:
10. The provisions in the criminal law are for the protection and
empowerment of women but sometimes are used by certain women
more for purposes that they are never meant for. In recent times,
the invocation of Sections 498A, 376, 377, 506 of the IPC as a
combined package in most of the complaints related to matrimonial
disputes is a practice which has been condemned by this Court on
several occasions. In certain cases, the wife and her family tend to
use a criminal complaint with all the above serious offences as a
platform for negotiation and as a mechanism and a tool to get the
husband and his family to comply with their demands, which are
mostly monetary in nature. Sometimes this is done in a fit of rage
after a marital dispute, while at times it is a planned strategy in other
cases. Unfortunately, it is not just the parties who are involved in
this abuse of the process of law. They are understandably fuelled
by the emotions of the situation. But other stakeholders also worsen
the situation as they may often devise such crafty strategies for the
women to adopt such arm-twisting tactics for their ulterior motives.
Further, the police personnel are sometimes quick to jump into
action in selective cases and arrest the husband or even their
1390 [2024] 12 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

relatives including aged and bedridden parents and grand-parents
of the husband. The trial courts are hesitant in granting bail to the
accused persons being swayed by the “gravity of the offences”
mentioned in the FIR. The collective effect of this chain of events
is often overlooked by the actual individual players involved therein,
which is that even minor disputes between husband and wife tend
to snowball into ugly prodigious battles of ego and reputation and
washing dirty linen in public, eventually leading to the relationship
turning sour to the extent that there remains no possibility of a
reconciliation or cohabitation. The women need to be careful about
the fact that these strict provisions of law in their hands are beneficial
legislations for their welfare and not means to chastise, threaten,
domineer or extort from their husbands.
10.1 Recently, this Court speaking through one of us (Nagarathna,
J.) in Dara Lakshmi Narayana vs. State of Telangana, 2024
INSC 953, while considering an appeal against an order
dismissing a petition filed under Section 482 CrPC for quashing
a complaint filed under Section 498A of the IPC and Sections
3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 observed as follows:
“25. A mere reference to the names of family members
in a criminal case arising out of a matrimonial dispute,
without specific allegations indicating their active
involvement should be nipped in the bud. It is a well-
recognised fact, borne out of judicial experience, that
there is often a tendency to implicate all the members
of the husband’s family when domestic disputes
arise out of a matrimonial discord. Such generalised
and sweeping accusations unsupported by concrete
evidence or particularised allegations cannot form
the basis for criminal prosecution. Courts must
exercise caution in such cases to prevent misuse
of legal provisions and the legal process and avoid
unnecessary harassment of innocent family members.
In the present case, appellant Nos.2 to 6, who are the
members of the family of appellant No.1 have been
living in different cities and have not resided in the
matrimonial house of appellant No.1 and respondent
No.2 herein. Hence, they cannot be dragged into
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 1391

Rinku Baheti v. Sandesh Sharda

criminal prosecution and the same would be an abuse
of the process of the law in the absence of specific
allegations made against each of them.
x x x x
28. The inclusion of Section 498A of the IPC by
way of an amendment was intended to curb cruelty
inflicted on a woman by her husband and his family,
ensuring swift intervention by the State. However, in
recent years, as there have been a notable rise in
matrimonial disputes across the country, accompanied
by growing discord and tension within the institution
of marriage, consequently, there has been a growing
tendency to misuse provisions like Section 498A of
the IPC as a tool for unleashing personal vendetta
against the husband and his family by a wife. Making
vague and generalised allegations during matrimonial
conflicts, if not scrutinized, will lead to the misuse
of legal processes and an encouragement for use
of arm twisting tactics by a wife and/or her family.
Sometimes, recourse is taken to invoke Section
498A of the IPC against the husband and his family
in order to seek compliance with the unreasonable
demands of a wife. Consequently, this Court has,
time and again, cautioned against prosecuting the
husband and his family in the absence of a clear
prima facie case against them.
29. We are not, for a moment, stating that any woman
who has suffered cruelty in terms of what has been
contemplated under Section 498A of the IPC should
remain silent and forbear herself from making a
complaint or initiating any criminal proceeding. That
is not the intention of our aforesaid observations
but we should not encourage a case like as in the
present one, where as a counterblast to the petition for
dissolution of marriage sought by the first appellant-
husband of the second respondent herein, a complaint
under Section 498A of the IPC is lodged by the latter.
In fact, the insertion of the said provision is meant
mainly for the protection of a woman who is subjected
1392 [2024] 12 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

to cruelty in the matrimonial home primarily due to
an unlawful demand for any property or valuable
security in the form of dowry. However, sometimes
it is misused as in the present case.”
10.2 This Court, had highlighted this growing problem of trivial
quarrels between spouses turning into criminal complaints,
in Achin Gupta vs. State of Haryana & Anr., (2024) 6 SCR
129, wherein it was observed by Pardiwala, J. as follows:
“32. Many times, the parents including the close
relatives of the wife make a mountain out of a mole.
Instead of salvaging the situation and making all
possible endeavours to save the marriage, their action
either due to ignorance or on account of sheer hatred
towards the husband and his family members, brings
about complete destruction of marriage on trivial
issues. The first thing that comes in the mind of the
wife, her parents and her relatives is the Police, as
if the Police is the panacea of all evil. No sooner the
matter reaches up to the Police, then even if there are
fair chances of reconciliation between the spouses,
they would get destroyed. The foundation of a sound
marriage is tolerance, adjustment and respecting one
another. Tolerance to each other’s fault to a certain
bearable extent has to be inherent in every marriage.
Petty quibbles, trifling differences are mundane
matters and should not be exaggerated and blown
out of proportion to destroy what is said to have been
made in the heaven. The Court must appreciate that
all quarrels must be weighed from that point of view in
determining what constitutes cruelty in each particular
case, always keeping in view the physical and mental
conditions of the parties, their character and social
status. A very technical and hyper sensitive approach
would prove to be disastrous for the very institution
of the marriage. In matrimonial disputes the main
sufferers are the children. The spouses fight with such
venom in their heart that they do not think even for
a second that if the marriage would come to an end,
then what will be the effect on their children. Divorce
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 1393

Rinku Baheti v. Sandesh Sharda

plays a very dubious role so far as the upbringing of
the children is concerned. The only reason why we are
saying so is that instead of handling the whole issue
delicately, the initiation of criminal proceedings would
bring about nothing but hatred for each other. There
may be cases of genuine ill-treatment and harassment
by the husband and his family members towards the
wife. The degree of such ill-treatment or harassment
may vary. However, the Police machinery should be
resorted to as a measure of last resort and that too in
a very genuine case of cruelty and harassment. The
Police machinery cannot be utilised for the purpose
of holding the husband at ransom so that he could
be squeezed by the wife at the instigation of her
parents or relatives or friends. In all cases, where
wife complains of harassment or ill-treatment, Section
498A of the IPC cannot be applied mechanically. No
FIR is complete without Sections 506(2) and 323 of
the IPC. Every matrimonial conduct, which may cause
annoyance to the other, may not amount to cruelty.
Mere trivial irritations, quarrels between spouses,
which happen in day-to-day married life, may also
not amount to cruelty.”
(underlining by us)

10.3 The effect of such criminal complaints filed on the spur-of-
the-moment on the relationship between the parties, the
chances of an amicable settlement and the overall suffering
of the parties in the process was highlighted by this Court in
the case of Preeti Gupta vs. State of Jharkhand, (2010) 9
SCR 1168 as follows:
“32. Unfortunately, at the time of filing of the complaint
the implications and consequences are not properly
visualized by the complainant that such complaint can
lead to insurmountable harassment, agony and pain
to the complainant, accused and his close relations.
33. The ultimate object of justice is to find out the
truth and punish the guilty and protect the innocent
1394 [2024] 12 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

To find out the truth is a herculean task in majority
of these complaints. The tendency of implicating
husband and all his immediate relations is also not
uncommon. At times, even after the conclusion of
criminal trial, it is difficult to ascertain the real truth.
The courts have to be extremely careful and cautious
in dealing with these complaints and must take
pragmatic realities into consideration while dealing
with matrimonial cases. The allegations of harassment
of husband’s close relations who had been living in
different cities and never visited or rarely visited the
place where the complainant resided would have an
entirely different complexion. The allegations of the
complaint are required to be scrutinized with great
care and circumspection. Experience reveals that
long and protracted criminal trials lead to rancour,
acrimony and bitterness in the relationship amongst
the parties. It is also a matter of common knowledge
that in cases filed by the complainant if the husband
or the husband’s relations had to remain in jail even
for a few days, it would ruin the chances of amicable
settlement altogether. The process of suffering is
extremely long and painful.
34. Before parting with this case, we would like to
observe that a serious relook of the entire provision
is warranted by the legislation. It is also a matter of
common knowledge that exaggerated versions of the
incident are reflected in a large number of complaints.
The tendency of over implication is also reflected in
a very large number of cases.
35. The criminal trials lead to immense sufferings
for all concerned. Even ultimate acquittal in the trial
may also not be able to wipe out the deep scars of
suffering of ignominy. Unfortunately a large number
of these complaints have not only flooded the courts
but also have led to enormous social unrest affecting
peace, harmony and happiness of the society…”
(underlining by us)
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 1395

Rinku Baheti v. Sandesh Sharda

11. In this context we wish to observe that a Hindu marriage is a sacrament
and is considered to be a sacred institution as a foundation for a
family and not a commercial venture. One of us (Nagarathna, J.)
in Dolly Rani vs. Manish Kumar Chanchal, (2024) 5 SCR 510
speaking for the Bench observed therein as under:
“26. The promises made to each by the parties to a Hindu
marriage and the oath taken by them to remain friends
forever lay the foundation for a life-long commitment
between the spouses which should be realized by them.
If such commitment to each other is adhered to by the
couple, then there would be far fewer cases of breakdown
of marriages leading to divorce or separation.”
11.1 But unfortunately in the present case, the parties haven’t
adhered to their marital oath. Which of the two parties was
at fault for breaking that sacred marital bond is not something
for this Court to go into, but from the aforementioned facts
and circumstances, it would be safe to conclude that their
marriage has completely failed. As rightly observed by Dalveer
Bhandari, J. in the case of Naveen Kohli vs. Neelu Kohli,
(2006) 4 SCC 558, “since there is no acceptable way in which
a spouse can be compelled to resume life with the consort,
nothing is gained by trying to keep the parties tied for ever to
a marriage that in fact has ceased to exist.”
12. Apart from the irreconcilable status of the relationship between the
parties, in the present case, another factor that has weighed with
this Court in favour of the exercise of the power under Article 142(1)
is that there is no child born out of the wedlock and therefore, any
direction to allow the parties to part ways would only affect the parties
themselves and not any innocent child.
13. Thus, this is a fit case for us to exercise our discretion under Article
142(1) of the Constitution of India to dissolve the marriage between
the parties on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage.
Hence, the application is liable to be allowed and is allowed.

Maintenance / Permanent Alimony:
14. We have to now consider the question of assessing the alimony for
the petitioner upon the dissolution of marriage between the parties.
1396 [2024] 12 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

It was for the limited purpose of determining the quantum of alimony
or maintenance or other rights of the petitioner-wife that this Court
had transferred the case to the Family Court, Pune. The Family Court
has considered the pleadings and evidence of the parties in detail,
and has sent us its report in the form of an order dated 22.03.2024.
In essence, the petitioner-wife has sought permanent alimony
commensurate to the assets and income of the respondent-husband
and on the same principles on which the alimony was paid to the
first wife of the respondent. The respondent-husband has denied the
exorbitant claims of the petitioner and submitted that Rs.20 lakhs to
Rs.40 lakhs would be an appropriate amount of permanent alimony
for the petitioner. Finally, the Family Court, Pune has suggested a
permanent alimony of Rs.2 lakhs per month for the petitioner-wife
or Rs.10 crores in lumpsum.
14.1 We have perused the application of the petitioner for fixation
of alimony, the reply of the respondent to the said application,
the order dated 22.03.2024 passed by the Family Court, Pune,
and the submissions advanced in this aspect.
14.2 The dispute with respect to the amount of alimony is generally
the most contentious point between parties in such marital
proceedings, supplemented by a plethora of accusations
to remove the cover from the opposite party’s income and
assets. The judicial dicta in this context could be discussed
as under:
14.2.1 In the order passed by a three-Judge Bench of this
Court in the case of Shakti vs. Anita, Civil Appeal
No. 7427/2023, MANU/SCOR/139017/2023 decided
on 02.11.2023, it was observed as under:
“That brings us to the aspect of permanent
alimony over which the real dispute is.
We looked to the offer of the appellant as
also the desire of the respondent. There is
undoubtedly a miss match! As often happens
the claim of the respondent is based on what
is stated to be a large number of properties
of the family of the appellant, though nothing
is placed on record of anything in his name.”
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 1397

Rinku Baheti v. Sandesh Sharda

14.2.2 The law with respect to deciding the amount of
permanent alimony was summarised by a bench of this
Court recently in Kiran Jyot Maini vs. Anish Pramod
Patel, (2024) 7 SCR 942, wherein this Court speaking
through Vikram Nath, J. has touched upon the question
of one-time settlement and the factors that should be
taken into consideration while determining fair amount
of permanent alimony. It was also observed as under:
“The status of the parties is a significant factor,
encompassing their social standing, lifestyle,
and financial background. The reasonable
needs of the wife and dependent children
must be assessed, including costs for food,
clothing, shelter, education, and medical
expenses. The applicant’s educational and
professional qualifications, as well as their
employment history, play a crucial role in
evaluating their potential for self-sufficiency.
If the applicant has any independent source
of income or owns property, this will also be
taken into account to determine if it is sufficient
to maintain the same standard of living
experienced during the marriage. Additionally,
the court considers whether the applicant
had to sacrifice employment opportunities for
family responsibilities, such as child-rearing
or caring for elderly family members, which
may have impacted their career prospects.”
14.2.3 In Vinny Paramvir Parmar vs. Paramvir Parmar,
(2011) 9 SCR 371, this Court held that there cannot
be a fixed formula or a straitjacket rubric for fixing the
amount of permanent alimony and only broad principles
can be laid down. The question of maintenance is
subjective to each case and depends on various factors
and circumstances as presented in individual cases. This
Court in the above judgment stated that the courts shall
consider the following broad factors while determining
permanent alimony – income and properties of both
the parties respectively, conduct of the parties, status,
1398 [2024] 12 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

social and financial, of the parties, their respective
personal needs, capacity and duty to maintain others
dependant on them, husband’s own expenses, wife’s
comfort considering her status and the mode of life she
was used to during the subsistence of the marriage,
among other supplementary factors.
14.2.4 This was further reiterated by this Court in Vishwanath
Agrawal vs. Sarla Vishwanath Agrawal, (2012) 7
SCR 607, while observing that permanent alimony is
to be granted after considering largely the social status,
conduct of the parties, the parties’ lifestyle, and other
such ancillary factors.
14.3 Earlier, a two-judge bench of this Court speaking through
Indu Malhotra, J. in Rajnesh vs. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324
(“Rajnesh”), elaborated upon the broad criteria and the factors
to be considered for determining the quantum of maintenance.
This court emphasizes that there is no fixed formula for
calculating maintenance amount; instead, it should be based
on a balanced consideration of various factors. These factors
include and are illustrative but are not limited or exhaustive,
they are adumbrated as under:
i. Status of the parties, social and financial.
ii. Reasonable needs of the wife and dependent children.
iii. Qualifications and employment status of the parties.
iv. Independent income or assets owned by the parties.
v. Maintain standard of living as in the matrimonial home.
vi. Any employment sacrifices made for family responsibilities.
vii. Reasonable litigation costs for a non-working wife.
viii. Financial capacity of husband, his income, maintenance
obligations, and liabilities.
14.4 In the instant case as well, the petitioner-wife has stated that
the respondent-husband is a man of means with a net-worth
of Rs.5,000 crores with multiple businesses and properties in
USA and in India and that he had paid his first wife at least
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 1399

Rinku Baheti v. Sandesh Sharda

Rs.500 crores upon separation, excluding a house in Virginia,
USA. Thus, she claims permanent alimony commensurate
to the status of the respondent-husband and on the same
principles as was paid to the first wife of the respondent.
The respondent-husband on the other hand is willing to pay
a reasonable amount to cover the difference in the income
and expenditure of the petitioner-wife, which he feels should
be in the range of Rs.20 to 40 lakhs as a one-time lump sum
payment. Thus, there is a clear and significant divergence or
“mismatch” between the offer and the desire.
14.5 We have serious reservations with the tendency of parties
seeking maintenance or alimony as an equalisation of
wealth with the other party. It is often seen that parties in
their application for maintenance or alimony highlight the
assets, status and income of their spouse, and then ask for
an amount that can equal their wealth to that of the spouse.
However, there is an inconsistency in this practice, because
the demands of equalisation are made only in cases where
the spouse is a person of means or is doing well for himself.
But such demands are conspicuously absent in cases where
the wealth of the spouse has decreased since the time of
separation. There cannot be two different approaches to
seeking and granting maintenance or alimony, depending on
the status and income of the spouse. The law of maintenance
is aimed at empowering the destitute and achieving social
justice and dignity of the individual. The husband is under a
legal obligation to sufficiently provide for his wife. As per settled
law, the wife is entitled to be maintained as far as possible
in a manner that is similar to what she was accustomed to
in her matrimonial home while the parties were together. But
once the parties have separated, it cannot be expected of
the husband to maintain her as per his present status all his
life. If the husband has moved ahead and is fortunately doing
better in life post his separation, then to ask him to always
maintain the status of the wife as per his own changing status
would be putting a burden on his own personal progress. We
wonder, would the wife be willing to seek an equalisation of
wealth with the husband if due to some unfortunate events
post-separation, he has been rendered a pauper?
1400 [2024] 12 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

14.6 However, the law permits that if there is a continuing obligation
on the husband post-separation, he may seek a reduction in the
maintenance amount. Equally, a divorced wife, in the context
of receiving monthly maintenance from a former husband can
seek enhancement of the same owing to inflation or other
circumstances which have adversely affected her status and
position such as serious illness or loss of income from a
particular source, etc.
14.7 But the petitioner-wife in the instant case has sought
equalisation of status not just with the respondent-husband
but also with the ex-wife of the respondent. In our opinion,
this cannot be an acceptable approach. The fixation of
alimony depends on various factors and there cannot be
any straight-jacket formula for the same. Thus, the petitioner
cannot simply claim an amount equal to what the ex-wife of
the respondent had received or on the basis of the income of
the respondent. The Court has to not just consider the income
of the respondent-husband here, but also bear in mind other
factors such as the income of the petitioner-wife, her reasonable
needs, her residential rights, and other similar factors. Thus,
her entitlement to maintenance has to be decided based on
the factors applicable to her and not depend on what the
respondent had paid to his ex-wife or solely on his income.
14.8 This Court in Rajnesh, has observed that the duration of
the marriage would also be a relevant factor to be taken into
consideration while assessing the permanent alimony to be
paid to the wife. In the instant case, the parties were married
on 31.07.2021. They hardly resided together for about three
to four months. The respondent-husband left for USA in the
month of November, 2021 and thereafter returned in January,
2021. Between January, 2021 and March, 2021, the parties
are said to have stayed together for short intervals at Pune,
Kota, Bhopal and Jaipur, and thereafter, the respondent again
returned to USA on 08.03.2022. The respondent then came
back from USA on 12.06.2022. The differences between the
spouses emerged in the month of June-July, 2022, when the
respondent is said to have suggested separation and the
petitioner refused the same, leading to a criminal complaint
also being filed by the respondent against the petitioner in
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 1401

Rinku Baheti v. Sandesh Sharda

July, 2022. In fact, on 13.08.2022, a petition for divorce by
mutual consent was filed by the parties before the Family
Court, Bhopal. The said divorce petition was dismissed owing
to there being no separation between the parties for one
complete year.
14.9 In the present case, the detailed factual exercise for the grant
of alimony has been carried out by the Family Court, Pune
in compliance of the order of this Court. It was observed by
the learned Judge of the Family Court at Pune in paragraphs
48 to 55 as under:
“48. Considering the aforesaid factors and guidelines
and on perusal of the affidavit of assets and liabilities
of the petitioner-wife, it is crystal clear that the
monthly income of petitioner-wife is Rs.55,000/- and
her general monthly expenses are Rs.75,000/-. No
child is born out of the wedlock between petitioner-
wife and respondent-husband. It is nowhere the
case of the petitioner-wife that she was working/
doing the job and she has to sacrifice her job. She
is highly educated.
49. Though the petitioner-wife in her application for
fixation of permanent alimony, vide Exh.8 at para
No.13 contends that she is suffering from many
physical elements. She has health issues and
she incures costs for her medical treatment and
physiotheraphy, in her affidavit of assets and liabilities
(Exh.10) at Enclosure-1 D she has mentioned that the
columns of medical details are not applicable to her.
It means that she doesn’t suffer from any elements.
She has also not adduced any evidence about her
elements, treatments and costs incurred by her for
her treatment. So it is crystal clear that she is not
suffering from any elements. So there are no medical
costs which are required to be taken into consideration
while deciding the amount of permanent alimony.
50. As discussed in aforesaid paras, the petitioner-
wife has fixed deposits worth Rs.25,00,000/-, two
recurring deposits of worth Rs.24,000/-, National
1402 [2024] 12 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

Saving Certificates worth Rs.4,86,500/-, PPF balance
Rs.1,64,000/-. As discussed in para No. 13 supra, her
balance in the bank accounts is of Rs.67,15,111/-.
According to respondent-husband, he has paid Rs.
12,00,000/- to her after marriage. The petitioner-wife
as disclosed her annual income, approximately of
Rs.5,00,000/-. The petitioner-wife has not adduced
any evidence to prove the exact standard of life that
she lived in her matrimonial life.
51. It is significant to note that the duration of the
marriage of respondent-husband with his ex-wife
was 19 years and two children were born out of the
said wedlock. The assets between them were marital
assets and those were distributed between them
as per the prevailing laws of Virginia, USA. On the
contrary, the marriage between the petitioner-wife
and respondent-husband lasted for 6 months out
of that they hardly lived together for three to four
months. No child is born out of the said wedlock. So,
while deciding the alimony to the petitioner-wife, the
situation and her status cannot be equated with the
ex-wife of the respondent-husband.
52. While deciding the amount of permanent alimony,
one more aspect is required to be considered. It is
not disputed that the petitioner- wife and respondent-
husband preferred a petition for divorce by mutual
consent under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage
Act, 1955, in the Family Court, Bhopal, Madhya
Pradesh on 13/08/2022. The petitioner-wife agreed
to receive Rs.8,00,00,000/- (lumpsum) towards
permanent alimony by D.D. The said petition came
to be dismissed on 29/08/2022 on the ground that
the parties were not residing separately for more than
one year so, the petition was premature.
53. On the perusal of the affidavit of assets and
liabilities of the petitioner-wife it reveals that she
has acquired 700.414gm gold and 2kg Silver during
or after marriage. But the petitioner-wife has not
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 1403

Rinku Baheti v. Sandesh Sharda

mentioned it’s value. The cost of said gold as on
today is Rs.46,85,100/- and of Silver is Rs.1,53,000/-.
Residential Rights
54. The petitioner-wife, in her application vide Exh.8
prays to grand right of resident at her current address
i.e. Ivy Glen, Marrygold Co-operative Housing Society,
Kalyani Nagar, Pune which is the matrimonial house.
According to the respondent it is owned by his old
aged father so, it is not her matrimonial home. It is
significant to note that the petitioner-wife owns a
residentital flat at Cosmos Magarpatta Township,
Pune, which she has given it on rent. She receives
rent from it. She can live in her own house. If she
resides in her own house, she will not get income
from rent. So, it can be considered while deciding
the quantum of permanent alimony. As she owns her
own house it is not necessary to make provision for
her separate residence while deciding the permanent
alimony.
Amount of Permanent Alimony
55. On perusal of bank statements produced by the
petitioner-wife, it reveals that there are monthly debit
and credit transactions of approximately Rs.2,50,000/-,
respectively. Her monthly income is Rs.55,000/-. If
petitioner-wife a resides in her own house she will
not get the monthly rental income so this factor is
required to be considered while deciding the quantum
of permanent alimony. So considering the status and
standard of living of her husband it reveals that the
permanent alimony of Rs.2,00,000/- per month is just
and reasonable and if in a lumpsum amount towards
permanent alimony is to be granted, an amount of
Rs.10,00,00,000/- would be just and proper.
Hence, the report is submitted with due respects.”
Thus, the lumpsum amount towards permanent alimony
determined by the learned Judge of the Family Court at
Pune is Rs.10 crores.
1404 [2024] 12 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

14.10 We find that since the petitioner has let her flat and is receiving
monthly rental income from the flat to the tune of Rs.27,000/-
(Rupees Twenty-Seven Thousand only) and she also has
interest income from fixed deposits, she is not economically
impoverished as such. In the petition filed by the parties
jointly seeking dissolution of their marriage by a decree of
divorce by mutual consent, respondent herein had agreed
to pay a sum of Rs.8 crores towards full and final settlement
of all claims of the petitioner. The Family Court at Pune
has assessed Rs.10 crores as the quantum of permanent
alimony that petitioner could be entitled to. We accept the
said finding of the Family Court, Pune. An additional amount
of Rs.2 crores is liable to be paid to the petitioner so as to
enable her to acquire another flat, in case she is interested
in doing so, as we are directing the petitioner to vacate her
father-in-law’s flats which she is presently occupying in Pune
as well as in Bhopal, if not already vacated. Thus, a total sum
of Rs.12 crores is liable to be paid as permanent alimony to
the petitioner by the respondent as a full and final settlement
of all her claims on the respondent and his family. Further,
the respondent and his family shall also not demand the
return of any amounts that he or his family may have paid
to the petitioner or any jewellery or other valuables that he
or his family may have gifted to the petitioner.

Conclusion:
15. In the result, we hold as under:
a. The application filed by the respondent-husband under Article
142(1) of the Constitution of India is allowed and the marriage
between the petitioner and the respondent is dissolved on the
ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage.
b. Consequently, the criminal cases and the consequential
proceedings pending against respondent-husband, arising out
of FIR No. 588 of 2022 dated 15.12.2022 before the Police
Station Yerwada, District Pune, for offences punishable under
Sections 354, 376, 377, 420, 498A, 503, 506, 509 of the IPC
and Sections 66 and 67 of the IT Act, 2000, filed by the petitioner
herein, are hereby quashed.
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 1405

Rinku Baheti v. Sandesh Sharda

c. Further, the criminal case and the proceedings arising out of FIR
No. 586 of 2022 dated 12.12.2022 filed by the petitioner herein
against Mr. Paresh Somani before the Police Station Yerwada,
District Pune, for offences punishable under Sections 360, 427,
452, 454, and 457 of the IPC, shall also stand quashed.
d. The respondent shall pay the petitioner a sum of Rs.12,00,00,000/-
(Rupees Twelve Crores only) which shall be paid within a period
of one month from today.
An undertaking to that effect shall be filed before this Court
within two weeks from today.
e. Litigation charges for the petitioner is quantified at Rs.3,00,000/-
(Rupees Three Lakhs only) which shall be paid along with the
payment of permanent alimony.
f. The petitioner shall vacate from the premises belonging to
respondent’s father at Pune and Bhopal, within two months
from the date of receipt of the amount of permanent alimony
from the respondent, as detailed hereunder:
(i) Flat No.C-1, Ivy Glen Marigold Complex, Kalyani Nagar,
Pune (Maharashtra); and
(ii) E-7/53, Arera SBI Colony, Bhopal (M.P.), if not already
vacated.
An undertaking shall be filed by the petitioner to the aforesaid
effect within a period of two weeks from today.
g. In view of the above, the Transfer Petition stands disposed,
along with pending application(s), if any.

Result of the case: Transfer Petition disposed of.

†
Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain