Article 142 permits consensual divorce and quashing of related proceedings where reconciliation is impossible.

The wife filed a criminal transfer petition seeking transfer of a Cuttack criminal case to Mumbai and a civil transfer petition seeking transfer of a domestic-violence case to Mumbai; the Supreme Court stayed proceedings in both cases.

During their pendency, the husband applied under Article 142 of the Constitution for dissolution of the marriage on the ground of irretrievable breakdown and for quashing pending litigation.

The parties had married on 4 December 2016, lived separately from 2022, and had numerous civil and criminal proceedings pending between them and their family members.

After settlement discussions, the wife consented to divorce and accepted Rs. 35,00,000 as permanent alimony in full and final settlement of her claims.

1. Whether the Court should exercise its Article 142 powers to dissolve the marriage, given the parties’ consent, prolonged separation, and absence of any prospect of reconciliation.

2. Whether the Court should quash the pending civil and criminal proceedings between the parties and their family members as part of doing complete justice.

Article 142(1) of the Constitution empowers the Supreme Court to pass orders necessary to do “complete justice” in a cause or matter, including, in an appropriate case, to dissolve a marriage and bring related proceedings to an end.

In Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan, (2023) 14 SCC 231, the Court held that this power may be exercised where the statutory conditions and relevant circumstances justify a decree, but its exercise depends on the facts of each case; relevant considerations include the parties’ genuine and voluntary decision, separation, prospects of reconciliation, settlement, and arrangements concerning alimony.

In Rinku Baheti v. Sandesh Sharda, (2025) 3 SCC 686, the Court reiterated that divorce on irretrievable breakdown under Article 142 is discretionary, not a matter of right, and may be granted where the marriage is beyond repair and dissolution is necessary to do complete justice.

The Court found that the parties had lived separately since 2022, their marriage had reached a dead end, and reconciliation was not possible; it also noted the extensive litigation arising from the matrimonial dispute and the parties’ agreement to part ways.

Having regard to the wife’s consent and the husband’s payment of the agreed Rs. 35,00,000 in full and final settlement of her claims, the Court concluded that exercising Article 142 jurisdiction would bring the dispute to a just and final resolution.

It accordingly extended relief to the cases identified in both parties’ lists and other civil or criminal cases filed inter se between them.

It quashed the pending cases listed in the judgment and any other civil or criminal cases filed inter se between the parties, directed them not to file fresh cases against each other, and disposed of both transfer petitions.

The Registry was directed to draw up a decree.