M.Siddiq (Dead) through Legal Representative (Ram Janmabhoomi Temple Case) vs. Mahant Suresh Das & others
The Supreme Court has been provided with wide amp litude under Article 142(1) of the Constitution to do ‘complete justice’ between the parties when strict application of the law does not produce a just out come.
- I.C.Golak Nath & Ors.vs.State of Punjab & Ors.
The court can evolve judicial doctrines for the purpose of ensuring ‘complete justice ’between the partiesusing the power under Article 142(1) of the Constitution.While exercising the power,the court shall work with in the constitutional contours and ensure no encroachment on the functions/powers of the legislatureor in justice.
- Union Carbide Corporation & Ors.vs.Union of India & Ors.
The Apex Court pointed out that“cause”refers to any action/criminal proceedings in the court and “matter” refers to any proceeding in the court.Thus, use of words “cause” and “matter” in Article 142(1) of the Constitution cover sn early every proceedings in the court whether civil/criminal,interlocutory/final, before/after judgement. It further stated that powers underArticle 142(1) of the Constitution are not restricted by ordinary laws of thestatutory scheme unless “substantive law based on the general/ specific issues under lying public policy”.
- Supreme Court Bar Association vs.Union of India
While deciding on the matter, the Top Court stated it cannot ignore the legal rights of the party while exercising its power under Article 142(1) of the Constitution. The power could not be exercised to create an edifice which wasnot present altogether thus, “court cannot achieve indirectly which cannot beachieved directly”. Furthermore, it provided that the court cannot ordinarilydisregard the statutory provision except to “to balance the equities between the conflicting views of the litigating parties by ironing out creases
- WHETHER OTHER IN CID ENTAL /ANCILLARY /CONSE QUENTIAL PROCEEDINGS COULD BE DISPENSED / QUASHED BY THE COURT FOLLOWING THE DIVORCE DECREE OF THE COURT
The Hon’ble Supreme Court is the Apex Court of India and has every power that is vested with the Civil Court, Family Court and High Court hence it candispense /quash the incidental /ancillary/ consequential proceedings following the decree of divorce to provide relief to the parties from any anxiety/panic and ensure that noun necessary burden is imposed on the concerned courts for hearing application related to dispensing /quashing the matter.
- WHETHER THE COURT CAN GRANT DIVORCE ON THE GROUND OF IRRETRIE VABLE BREAK DOWN OF MARRIAGE, EVEN WHEN ONE OF THE SPOUSE IS OPPOSING PRAYER BY EXERCISE OF POWER UNDER ARTICLE 142(1) OF THE CONSTITUTION
The Hon’ble Supreme Court stated that power under Article 142(1) of the Constitutiongrants the liberty to grant divorce with due care and caution on the ground of irretrievable break down of marriage after answering the following questions:
1. Period for which parties cohabited together post marriage
2. When did parties last cohabited together
3. Nature of allegations made by parties against each other and family members
4. Legal orders passed by the court from time to time
5. Cumulative impact on the personal relation ship between the parties
6. Whether any efforts to amicably settle the dispute has been made.If yes,how many and when was the last attempt made
The court will give dueregard to factors given below while deciding the matter in question:
(a.) Educational qualifications of the couple.
(b.) Socio-economicstatus
(c.) Whether any dependent spouse /children.If yes,in what manner the other party is intending to take care of such dependent
(d.) Child custody since welfare of the child is of par amount consideration
(e.) Provision for fair and adequatealimony for the wife
(f.) Economic rights of the child
(g.) Any other important matter
The court stated wherein period of separation is 6 years or longer it shall beconsideredsufficient.
- ASHOK HURR Av. RUPA BIPIN ZAVERI
The Apex Court granted divorce to the couple on the ground of irretriev able break down of marriage under Article 142(1) of the Constitution since husbandand wife in spite of separation longer than a decade could not agree to divorce through mutual consent. More over ,the court emphasized that a decree of divorce has to be given in a dead marriage lest the sufferings, misery and tortureof the parties will continue. This was also enunciated in Naveen Kohli vs. Neelu Kohli & Bhagat vs. D.Bhagat.
- MANISH KAKKAR vs. NIDHI KAKKAR
The couple living separately were involved in multiple litigation. The husband was suffering from lone liness and wife,who was in Canada,was taking pills for depression. Regardless of long separation, both of them could not agree to divorce through mutual consent and attempts for reconciliation had already failed. Contemplating on the matter, the Top Court decided to grant divorce on the ground of irretriev able break down of marriage.
- SIVA SANKARAN vs. SANTHI MEENAL
In the given case,the wife continuously contested the decree of divorce not with standing the marriage only subsited on paper. The Supreme Court placedreliance on the verdicts of Manish Kakkar vs. Nidhi Kakkar and R. Srinivas Kumar vs. R. Shame tha held that mutual consent of the parties for divorce is not essential to dissolve marriage on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage under Article 142 (1) of the Constitution.
- SITOLE vs. GANGA
The Hon’ble Supreme Court using the power granted under Article 142(1) of the Constitution passed a decree of divorce on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage.
- SHYAM SUNDAR KOHLI vs. SUSHMA KOHLI ALI ASSATYA DEVI
The court clarified that divorce on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage could only be pronounced next re mecircum stances
- JORDEN DIENGDEH vs. S.S.CHOPRA
The court emphasized on the need to include irretrievable break down of marriage as a ground of divorce in the legislation concern in the matter.
- WHETHER COUPLE CAN DIRECTLY APPROACH THE SUPREME COURT UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION FOR SEEKING DIVORCE ON THE GROUND OF IRRETRIEVABLE BREAK DOWN OF MARRIAGE
Reiterating the two-judge bench decision in Poonam vs. Sumit Tanwar, the court held that couples can not directly approach the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution for seeking divorce on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage.
