Supreme Court Permits Divorce Under Article 142 And Quashes 498-A Proceedings Subject To Gift Of Apartment

A bench of Justice B.R. Gavai, Justice K. Vinod Chandran and Justice N. V. Anjaria heard an appeal by the husband challenging the Bombay High Court’s refusal to quash criminal proceedings registered under Section 498-A IPC, and an application invoking Article 142 of the Constitution for dissolution of marriage by mutual consent after the wife resiled from a mediated settlement.

The Court allowed the criminal appeal, quashed the FIR and related prosecution arising out of CC No.1336/PW/2018 for offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 406 read with Section 34 IPC, and exercised its powers under Article 142 to dissolve the marriage on the ground of “irretrievable break down,” subject to specified conditions. The Court found the allegations in the FIR to be “common-place, banal and vague” and observed that many complaints were “marital squabbles, skirmishes and bickerings blown out of proportion.” The Court, in its reasoning, observed: The Court further noted that the relationship had become “emotionally dead and beyond salvation” and that Article 142 was required “to do complete justice to both the parties.”

Background: The marriage was solemnised on July 25, 2015 and lasted around one year and nine months. The husband (appellant) had an autistic child from a previous marriage and owned an apartment at A‑52, Kalpataru Habitat, Dr. S.S. Rao Road, Mumbai, which was central to the dispute. The wife filed complaints culminating in registration of an FIR on April 19, 2018 under Section 498‑A IPC. Multiple family and criminal proceedings followed. The parties underwent mediation in Delhi and executed a settlement (Annexure P‑10) on September 1, 2022; the first motion for divorce by mutual consent was recorded on September 14, 2022. The wife later withdrew consent before the second motion, prompting the husband to seek quashing of criminal proceedings before the Bombay High Court; the High Court declined relief. The husband then invoked Article 142 relying on Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan and sought dissolution of marriage.

The Supreme Court reviewed the record and contemporaneous statements, held that the FIR-related allegations lacked specific instances and were, in many respects, ordinary matrimonial disputes not warranting criminal prosecutions, and applied the trite guidelines for exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (as articulated in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal). The Court also assessed financial positions: the wife had earlier received alimony in a prior marriage (found irrelevant), the husband had been employed earlier but presently was not, and the wife had educational and professional qualifications and had been working. The Court rejected unsubstantiated allegations of coercion, misrepresentation or fraud in the settlement.

Result and directions: the Court allowed the appeal, quashed the criminal proceedings, and dissolved the marriage under Article 142, but conditioned the divorce upon compliance with specified terms. Principal conditions required the appellant to deposit outstanding society maintenance dues up to September 1, 2025 and to execute and register a gift deed transferring the Mumbai apartment and two car parking spaces, on or before August 30, 2025 (with procedural fallback dates and attendance directions). If the appellant failed to comply the divorce would not take effect; if the respondent failed to attend registration the divorce would become effective. All civil and criminal proceedings between the parties relating to the marriage stood closed. The appellant agreed in Court to pay existing maintenance arrears to the society. The respondent’s claim for permanent alimony (said to be Rs.12 crores) was held unjustified in the circumstances.

Case No.: 2025 INSC 926; Criminal Appeal No. 5277 of 2024 Case Title: ANURAG VIJAYKUMAR GOEL v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Smt. Madhavi Diwan, Senior Counsel For the Respondent(s): Respondent No.2 appeared in person; State of Maharashtra — counsel not specified in the record provided.