LexVIKAS KANAUJIA versus SARITA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2024] 7 S.C.R. 933 : 2024 INSC 517 Vikas Kanaujia v. Sarita (Civil Appeal No. 7380 of 2024) 10 July 2024 [Vikram Nath* and Satish Chandra Sharma, JJ.] Issue for Consideration Whether the present appeal falls under the criteria of ‘irretrievable breakdown of marriage,’ warranting the Supreme Court to exercises its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to do complete justice. Headnotes† Marriage – Divorce – Whether the High Court erred in allowing the appeal of the Respondent and setting aside the decree of divorce granted by Family Court – Constitution of India – Article 142: Held: i)The Appellant-husband and Respondent-wife have lived together on their own will for hardly 43 days since marriage – The period of separation has been more than 22 years – The parties have fought multiple legal battles against each other since 2002 itself with six cases filed against each other, including criminal cases – In the Impugned Order the High Court has set aside the order of the Family Court, stating that the parties are not living separately out of their free will and it is the Appellant who has refused to cohabit with the Respondent. ii) In the present case the Respondent claims that she is willing to live with the Appellant – Respondent’s actions are not in consonance with her claim – Appellant contends that Respondent’s claim of willingness to live together is a false claim meant only to mislead the Court, delay the proceedings and harass the Appellant – Considering the long separation period of 22 years, the sour relations developed due to continuous legal battles, and the fact that both the parties are in their 50s now, having their independent lives makes the possibility of cohabitation implausible – Accordingly, the Supreme Court held the case to be fit for exercise of extraordinary powers conferred * Author 934 [2024] 7 S.C.R. Digital Supreme Court Reports under Article 142 of the Constitution and grant the decree of divorce under irretrievable breakdown of marriage in order to do complete justice to the parties – The judgement passed by the High Court of Allahabad passed in First Appeal No. 31 of 2007 is set aside. [Paras 15, 16, 17 and 19] Case Law Cited Shilpa Shailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan [2023] 5 SCR 165 : 2023 SCC OnLine SC 544; Rajib Kumar Roy v. Sushmita Saha, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1221 – relied on. List of Acts Constitution of India; Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. List of Keywords Irretrievable breakdown of marriage; Supreme Court’s power under Article 142 to do complete justice. Case Arising From CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 7380 of 2024 From the Judgment and Order dated 22.08.2019 of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in FA No. 31 of 2007 Appearances for Parties Sanjay Jain, Gaurav Agrawal, Sr. Advs., Lalit Chauhan, Ms. Mrinal Gopal Elker, Ms. Shambhvi Mansingh, Ms. Jasmine Chauhan, Ms. Harshita Sukheja, Nishank Tripathi, Ms. Palak Jain, Advs. for the Appellant. Ms. Meenakshi Arora, Abhinav Mukerji, Sr. Advs., Ms. Pratishtha Vij, Chritarth Palli, Advs. for the Respondent. Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court Judgment Vikram Nath, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. The present appeal is preferred by Appellant-Dr. Vikas Kanaujia against the impugned order of High Court of Allahabad dated [2024] 7 S.C.R. 935 Vikas Kanaujia v. Sarita 22.08.2019, passed in First Appeal No. 31 of 2007, whereby the High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the decree of divorce granted by the Family Court, Meerut on 20.12.2006 in Matrimonial Case No. 123 of 2003 filed by the Appellant. The Appellant-husband had filed the petition for dissolution of marriage under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 19551 on the ground of Cruelty. 3. The factual matrix of the case, along with the record of multiple legal proceedings between the parties, is summarised as follows: 4. Appellant-Dr. Vikas Kanaujia and Respondent-Dr. Sarita got married to each other on 20.02.2002 in accordance with Hindu Rites and Customs. The Respondent-wife came to her marital home at Meerut. The Appellant submitted in his plaint, that marriage was consummated but later the relationship between parties was strained as Respondent refused to perform marital obligations and misbehaved with his mother. On 22.02.2002, the younger brother and maternal aunt of the Respondent allegedly visited the house and the Respondent left for her paternal home along with them. The Appellant brought her bac
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.