A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

This case highlights the Supreme Court of India’s exercise of powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to grant a decree of divorce. The petitioner-wife, Trisha Singh, filed a transfer petition to shift a matrimonial case initiated by the husband, Anurag Kumar, under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. During mediation, the parties reached a settlement agreement, including terms for alimony and withdrawal of pending cases. The husband adhered to the settlement; however, the wife later resiled from it. Given the irrevocable breakdown of the marriage and the wife’s conduct, the Court granted a divorce decree under Article 142. The judgment emphasized the irretrievable breakdown of the marriage, ensuring justice by dissolving the marital tie.

Keywords: Article 142, Hindu Marriage Act, irrevocable breakdown, settlement agreement, decree of divorce.

B) CASE DETAILS

• i) Judgment Cause Title: Trisha Singh v. Anurag Kumar
• ii) Case Number: Transfer Petition (Civil) No. 1008 of 2023
• iii) Judgment Date: 15 May 2024
• iv) Court: Supreme Court of India
• v) Quorum: Hon’ble B.R. Gavai and Sandeep Mehta, JJ.
• vi) Author: Not specifically stated; delivered per curiam.
• vii) Citation: [2024] 5 S.C.R. 567; 2024 INSC 450
• viii) Legal Provisions Involved: Article 142 of the Constitution of India, Section 9 and Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
• ix) Judgments Overruled: None explicitly overruled.
• x) Related Law Subjects: Constitutional Law, Family Law.

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGMENT

The judgment originated from a transfer petition filed by the petitioner-wife seeking to shift the matrimonial case under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act from Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh, to Pune, Maharashtra. During proceedings, mediation facilitated by the Supreme Court led to an amicable settlement. The settlement terms included substantial alimony payments and withdrawal of pending matrimonial cases by the husband. The petitioner-wife accepted part of the alimony and facilitated the withdrawal of cases but subsequently withdrew from the agreement, triggering the husband’s plea for divorce under Article 142. The Court examined her conduct, invoking its constitutional powers to dissolve the marriage in the interest of justice.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

1. The respondent-husband filed a matrimonial case under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights.
2. The wife sought a transfer of the case to Pune, citing convenience.
3. Mediation at the Supreme Court Mediation Centre led to a settlement, signed on 26 February 2024.
4. Key terms included:
   • Payment of ₹1.15 crore as full and final alimony by the husband.
   • ₹50 lakh paid upfront; remaining payments were scheduled for later dates.
   • Transfer of the wife’s jewelry and silver items.
5. The husband complied with the terms, withdrawing the matrimonial case and making part-payment.
6. The wife subsequently resiled from the settlement without justification, prompting the husband to seek relief under Article 142.
7. The marriage was found to have broken down irretrievably.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

• Whether the petitioner-wife’s conduct justified invoking the Supreme Court’s powers under Article 142 to dissolve the marriage.
• Whether the settlement agreement terms could serve as a basis for granting a decree of divorce.
• The scope of Article 142 in ensuring complete justice when matrimonial disputes escalate due to breach of settlements.

F) PETITIONER’S ARGUMENTS

1. The petitioner-wife sought to transfer the case to Pune, citing personal convenience and undue hardship in attending proceedings in Varanasi.
2. She argued that resiling from the settlement was her prerogative, citing no final court order compelling her compliance.
3. She maintained silence regarding the breach, offering no counter-explanation to the husband’s claims.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

1. The respondent-husband contended he acted in good faith, adhering to all terms of the settlement.
2. He emphasized that the petitioner-wife had accepted ₹50 lakh and caused him to withdraw his matrimonial case, placing him at a disadvantage.
3. He argued the petitioner-wife’s subsequent breach of the settlement demonstrated bad faith.
4. He invoked the irretrievable breakdown of the marriage as a ground for divorce, supported by precedents.

H) RELATED LEGAL PROVISIONS

• Article 142, Constitution of India: Powers to grant complete justice in any cause.
• Section 9, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955: Restitution of conjugal rights.
• Section 13-B, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955: Divorce by mutual consent.

I) JUDGMENT

a. Ratio Decidendi

• The petitioner-wife’s conduct violated the settlement agreement, disregarding the mediator’s directions and legal commitments.
• The irretrievable breakdown of the marriage justified granting a divorce under Article 142, ensuring justice.

b. Obiter Dicta

• Settlements in matrimonial disputes must be honored to avoid judicial inefficiency and unnecessary hardship to compliant parties.

c. Guidelines

• Courts must uphold settlements made in good faith and penalize non-compliance to ensure the sanctity of legal mediation.
• Article 142 can be invoked in matrimonial cases where adherence to legal commitments is absent.

J) REFERENCES

a. Important Cases Referred

1. Ruchi Agarwal v. Amit Kumar Agrawal and Others, (2005) 3 SCC 299.
   • This case involved a wife resiling from a settlement, highlighting judicial intolerance for abuse of process in matrimonial disputes.

b. Important Statutes Referred

1. Constitution of India, Article 142.
2. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Sections 9 and 13-B.