# Rinku Baheti v. Sandesh Sharda

- **Citation:** 2024 INSC 1014
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2024-12-19
- **Bench:** B.V. Nagarathna, Pankaj Mithal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/rinku-baheti-v-sandesh-sharda-37375
- **Pages:** 51

## Headnote

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 - Husbandrespondent, 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was dismissed as withdrawn; second filed by both parties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

## Text

_Characters 0–39,511 of 111,423. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39511 for what follows._

[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 - Husbandrespondent, 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 exwife; 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.