Gopalakrishna Surapaneni vs Anuradha Surpaneni Maiden

1
2026 INSC 623

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Civil Appeal No(s). 8212-8213 OF 2026
(Arising out of SLP (C) No.34898-34899 of 2014)
GOPALAKRISHNA SURAPANENI APPELLANT(s)
VERSUS
ANURADHA SURPANENI MAIDEN RESPONDENT(s)
O R D E R
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. Leave granted.
3. The appellant is also present in person. The respondent has
joined the proceedings through virtual mode.
4.
The appellant has moved the Court against the order
impugned by which the High Court has upheld the dismissal of
the petition filed by the appellant before the Family Court
seeking divorce from the respondent-wife.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
ARJUN BISHT
Date: 2026.06.03
16:38:53 IST
Reason:
5.
Learned Senior counsel for the appellant submitted that the

2
parties are living separately since the year 2003 and despite
his efforts, they could not be reunited. It was submitted that
the conduct of the respondent-wife right from the beginning has
been one of harassment towards the appellant for the reason
that when both of them were living abroad, she started making
wild and scandalous allegations against him due to which,
ultimately, the appellant lost his job and had to relocate to
India to live with his parents at Hyderabad. It was submitted
that due to the constant harassment faced, the family had moved
to Andhra Pradesh, after selling the Hyderabad residence.
Thereafter, the father of the appellant has died and he is
living with his mother at the house of his sister after coming
back to Hyderabad, as he has no permanent residence/house of
his own, or in the name of his parents, as the house of the
parents of the appellant was sold in Hyderabad and they shifted
to Andhra Pradesh and the money which they got from the sale
was used for the treatment of the father of the appellant who
later on passed away.
6.
It was contended that in such background, the appellant has
now realized that he has no future with the respondent-wife and
has gone on the path of self-realization and does not want his
peace to be disturbed at this juncture in life. It was
submitted that after the separation, he has given more than Rs.

3
40,00,000/- (Rupees Forty Lakhs) to the respondent-wife for her
and their daughter's upkeep. Further, it was contended that in
terms of the earlier order of this Court, Rs. 68,00,000/-
(Rupees Sixty Eight Lakhs) has been deposited in the Registry
of the Court, which now has increased due to accumulation of
interest to approximately Rs. 75,00,000/- (Rupees Seventy Five
Lakhs). On a query of the Court as to what would be the quantum
he would be ready to further give to the respondent-wife by way
of a one-time permanent settlement, upon instructions, learned
counsel for the appellant submitted that initially the amount
indicated to him was Rs. 40,00,000/- (Rupees Forty Lakhs), but
now the appellant has agreed to a sum of Rs. 60,00,000/-
(Rupees Sixty Lakhs).
7.
On a query as to whether the appellant contends that he
should be made free of any responsibility towards the daughter
who is not before us, he fairly submits that the rights of the
daughter qua the father, including that on his estate/ancestral
properties would not be diminished and further that he would
also pitch in with his contribution at the time of the marriage
of his daughter.
8. The respondent appearing in person vehemently opposed the
prayer seeking divorce. It was contended that the issues raised
by the appellant are frivolous and in fact fictitious as no

4
such incident occurred. It was further contended that the
respondent is totally opposed to grant of divorce, more so
because of societal pressure. On a query of the Court as to
what were her real differences, when clearly relationships
cannot be restored between the parties by passing of orders and
the Court was of the tentative opinion that the marriage has
irretrievably broken down, the respondent-wife could not come
up with any satisfactory explanation.
9.
With regard to the quantum of the money being offered by
the appellant to the respondent, the respondent was not ready
to accept the fact that this would be by way of a permanent
settlement in terms of a divorce granted to the parties.
10.
The Court thus, was left in a peculiar situation where it
had to take a call as to whether interference was required or
not. The Court may indicate here that in such matters and at a
juncture where the stance of the parties are absolutely hard
and totally inflexible, the Court has to take a hard decision
which may not be acceptable to both the parties. However, the
Court has to look at the matter objectively, more so, for the
reason that both the parties have a life ahead which it is for
them to choose how they want to spend and forcing a
relationship, that too of husband and wife, cannot be done by
judicial proceedings. The Court thus has taken a very realistic

5
view in the matter and going by what has been stated above, has
come to the conclusion that the marriage between the parties
being dead for all practical purposes has to be nullified.
11.
Accordingly, exercising our power/jurisdiction under
Article 142 of the Constitution of India, we grant a decree of
divorce to the parties on the ground of irretrievable breakdown
of marriage. Registry to prepare the decree accordingly.
12.
However, the said grant of divorce is subject to the
appellant paying/transferring an amount of Rs. 60,00,000/-
(Rupees Sixty Lakhs) in favour of the respondent-wife within
two months from today, as has been undertaken before the Court
and proof thereof be filed before this Court. The amount lying
with the Registry of Rs. 68,00,000/- (Rupees Sixty Eight Lakhs)
along with whatever interest may have accrued in the
interregnum be paid to the respondent by the Registry upon
completion of the required formalities within two weeks from
today.
13. We also record that their daughter, who is not before us,
shall not be denuded of her rights which are crystallized due
to her being the biological daughter of the appellant. Further,
we also record that the appellant has agreed that he would also
contribute his share in the marriage of the daughter whenever
the same takes place.

6
14. As we have been informed that there is one case filed by
the appellant which is pending at Hyderabad being FCA No.93 of
2019, the same stands quashed.
15. The appeals stand allowed in the aforementioned terms.
16. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

.......................J.
(AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH)
.......................J.
(R. MAHADEVAN)
NEW DELHI
May 27, 2026.

7
ITEM NO.80 COURT NO.13 SECTION III-A
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 34898-
34899/2014
[Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 26-09-
2014in FCA No. 16/2007 26-09-2014 in FCA No. 22/2007 passed by
the HighCourt of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad]
GOPALAKRISHNA SURAPANENI Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
ANURADHA SURPANENI MAIDEN Respondent(s)
[FOR ORDERS]
IA No. 1/2014 - APP FOR PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS
IA No. 5/2015 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.
IA No. 29297/2024 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL
DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES
IA No. 3/2014 - PERMISSION TO FILE LENGTHY LIST OF DATES

Date : 27-05-2026 These matters were called for hearing today.
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Balaji Srinivasan, AoR
Ms. Kanishka Singh, Adv.


For Respondent(s) : Respondent-in-person
O R D E R
Leave granted.

8
2. Appeals stand allowed in terms of the reportable signed
order.
3. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
(SACHIN KUMAR SRIVASTAVA) (ANJALI PANWAR)
COURT MASTER (SH) ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
(Signed order is placed on the file)