Supreme Court: While considering transfer petitions filed by husband and wife seeking transfer of their pending suits to competent courts in Rohini, Delhi and Hapur, Uttar Pradesh respectively and other connected matters; the Division Bench of B.R. Gavai, CJ., and Augustine George Masih*, J., deemed it fit to invoke the power under Article 142 of the Constitution and dissolved the marriage between the parties. The Court further held that guidelines framed by Allahabad High Court in Mukesh Bansal v. State of U.P., 2022 SCC OnLine All 395, vis-a-vis ‘Constitution of Family Welfare Committees’ for safeguards regarding misuse of Section 498A of the IPC, shall remain in effect and be implemented by the appropriate authorities.
The Court also directed the wife to not use her influence as an IPS Officer against the husband, his family and relatives. The Court also directed the wife and her parents to tender unconditional apology to the husband and his family members for physical and mental trauma caused to them due to cases filed by the wife, which led to the husband and his father languishing in jail for 109 days and 103 days respectively. The Court clarified that the apology has been directed so as to bring about amicable closure to the protracted legal battle and associated emotional and mental stress. It is without prejudice to/for either party and shall not ever be used against the wife before any Court of Law, Quasi-Judicial Body / Tribunal against her interests now or in future. Any breach of the said condition shall be considered as Contempt of Court on the part of Husband and his family members.
Background:
The parties got married on 05-12-2015 in Delhi as per Hindu rites and customs. A daughter was born out of the wedlock on 23-12-2016, who is presently 8 years old. After their marriage, the parties resided in Pitampura, Delhi which was their matrimonial home along with the parents of the husband.
Owing to matrimonial discord and several disputes arising between the parties and their family members, they separated on 04-10-2018, and since then, they have been living separately.
Furthermore, after their separation, the parties filed several cases/ complaints/ legal proceedings etc. against each other and their family members before various Courts/ Authorities, out of which several cases/ complaints/ proceedings are pending. 15 cases were filed by the wife against the husband and his family/relatives, and 10 cases were filed by the husband against the wife and her family/relatives. Additionally, there were incidental matters/cases/ proceedings filed by third parties in view of the matrimonial discord between the parties.
Court’s Assessment and Directions:
Taking note of the facts of the case and number of pending cases between the parties, the Court noted that both parties wish to amicably resolve all disputes, including matters of child custody, and settle all pending litigations with full and final satisfaction to avoid any future litigation and maintain peace between them, in the present proceedings itself.
The Court therefore ordered that the wife shall have the custody of the minor daughter and the father, and his family shall have supervised visitation rights to meet the child for the first three months and thereafter based on the comfort and wellbeing of the minor girl child. Neither of the parties shall, in any manner, create any hindrance or impediment in the visitation rights. The Court directed the parties to conduct themselves in a manner that is conducive to the well-being and emotional health of the minor child and to extend their full cooperation in ensuring the smooth implementation of the above arrangement.
Considering that the wife voluntarily agreed to forgo and waive her claim to any alimony or maintenance from the husband and that she shall have no claim over any moveable and immoveable property owned and possessed by the husband and his family members currently or in the future; therefore, no order for maintenance was passed in favour of the Wife. Consequently, the Court quashed the order of maintenance of Rs 1,50,000 per month as passed by Allahabad High Court.
To bring an end to the protracted legal battle between the parties and to secure complete justice, all pending criminal and civil litigations filed by either party against the other, including but not limited to those against the Wife, the Husband, and his family members, in any court or forum in India, were quashed and/or withdrawn. Furthermore, incidental matters/ cases/ proceedings filed by third parties against the husband/wife and his/her family members & relatives, were also quashed.
Both husband and wife shall not file or initiate any future litigation, petition, case, complaint or otherwise arising out of these or related matters, in any judicial or quasi-judicial or regulatory or administrative forum or any other forum.
The Court took note that the husband and wife had reached an agreement that they shall refrain from interfering in each other’s life and not to do any act or promote or cause any act to be done which may be detrimental to each other’s personal and professional interests directly or indirectly and shall not collaborate with any such party to cause harm to the business.
The Court further expunged the remarks and observations against the wife made by the High Court in Mukesh Bansal (supra).
The Court directed that the husband and his family must be given police protection and that wife shall not use her position as IPS officer against the husband and his family.
Vis-a-vis slew of cases filed against the husband and his family, which resulted in imprisonment of the husband and his father, the Court directed the wife and her family to tender unconditional apology, which shall be published in the national edition of the one renowned English and one renowned Hindi newspaper. Such apology shall also be published and circulated on all social media platforms like Facebook, Instagram, YouTube and other similar platforms. The Court clarified that expression of apology shall not be construed as an admission of liability and shall have no bearing on the legal rights, obligations, or consequences arising under law.
Henceforth, the Court granted divorce to the parties and directed that Allahabad High Court’s guidelines on ‘Constitution of Family Welfare Committees’ to be made applicable by the authorities.
[Shivangi Bansal v. Sahib Bansal, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1494, decided on 22-7-2025]
*Judgment by Justice Augustine George Masih
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For Petitioner(s): Mr. Gaurav Jain, Adv. Ms. Abha Jain, AOR Mr. Sumit Srivaastava, AOR Mr. Sanjeet Kumar Trivedi, AOR Mr. Hemant Gupta, Adv. Mr. Sudarshan Rajan, AOR Ms. Srishti Sharma, Adv. Mr. Mahesh Kumar, Adv. Mr. Ashutosh Gupta, Adv. Ms. Ria Setiya, Adv. Mr. Ramesh Rawat, Adv. Mr. Hitain Bajaj, Adv. Mr. Sambhav Sharma, Adv.
For Respondent(s): Dr. Vijendra Singh, AOR Mr. Harsh Pratap Shahi, Adv. Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Adv. Mr. Vikas Bansal, Adv. Ms. Apurva Singh, Adv. Mr. Ghanshyam Singh, Adv. Mr. Aniket Tiwari, Adv. Mr. Sanjeet Kumar Trivedi, AOR Mr. Hemant Gupta, Adv. Mr. Sumit Srivaastava, AOR Mr. Sudarshan Rajan, AOR Mr. Akshat Srivastava, AOR
Buy Constitution of India HERE
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
