TRISHA SINGHversusANURAG KUMAR

          [2024] 5 S.C.R. 567 : 2024 INSC 450

                         Trisha Singh
                              v.
                        Anurag Kumar
         (Transfer Petition (Civil) No. 1008 of 2023 )
                          15 May 2024
         [B.R. Gavai and Sandeep Mehta, JJ.]

                     Issue for Consideration
Parties arrived at an amicable settlement for dissolution of marriage
by mutual consent. However, the wife resiled from the settlement
agreement. Exercise of powers under Article 142 of the Constitution
of India to grant decree of divorce.

                            Headnotes†
Constitution of India – Article 142 – Exercise of powers under –
Grant of decree of divorce – Present transfer petition was filed
by wife seeking transfer of the petition filed by husband u/s.9
of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Parties arrived at settlement
before the Mediator for dissolution of marriage by mutual
consent – Husband abided by the terms of settlement however,
the wife resiled from the settlement agreement:
Held: The petitioner-wife having taken advantage of the settlement
executed before the Mediator managed to get the matrimonial
case instituted by the respondent-husband withdrawn – She also
accepted Rs.50 lakhs from the husband towards part payment
of the permanent alimony and thereafter, tried to resile from the
settlement without any justification – The conduct of the wife is
clearly, recalcitrant inasmuch as she disregarded the terms and
conditions agreed before the Mediator in the settlement proceedings
undertaken pursuant to the directions of this Court – Because of
her conduct, the husband was put to grave disadvantage inasmuch
as he withdrew the matrimonial case and also paid a significant
proportion of the permanent alimony to the wife in terms of the
settlement agreement – The matrimonial relations between the
spouses have broken down irrevocably and there is no possibility
of reconciliation and revival of the spousal relationship – Hence,
looking at the conduct of the wife and the other attending facts and
circumstances, decree of divorce granted in exercise the powers
under Article 142 of the Constitution of India – The marriage between
the petitioner and the respondent is dissolved. [Paras 7, 10]
568                                                              [2024] 5 S.C.R.

                        Digital Supreme Court Reports


                                Case Law Cited
       Ruchi Agarwal v. Amit Kumar Agrawal and Others (2005) 3 SCC
       299 – relied on.

                                   List of Acts
       Constitution of India; Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

                                List of Keywords
       Exercise of powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to
       grant decree of divorce; Transfer petition; Dissolution of marriage by
       mutual consent; Amicable settlement; Settlement before Mediator;
       Resiled from settlement; Matrimonial case withdrawn; Permanent
       alimony; Matrimonial relations; Spousal relationship; Irrevocable/
       irretrievable break down; Marriage dissolved.

                               Case Arising From
       CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Transfer Petition (Civil) No. 1008
       of 2023
       Petition Filed Under Section 9 of The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
                           Appearances for Parties
       Dr. Arvind S. Avhad, Adv. for the Petitioner.
       Paban K Sharma, Himanshu Shekhar, Pranab Kumar Nayak, Anchit
       Sripat, Arvind Kumar, Advs. for the Respondent.
                  Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

                                      Order
1.     The instant transfer petition came to be preferred by the petitioner-
       wife seeking transfer of the petition filed by the respondent-husband
       under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 being Matrimonial
       Case No. 2172/2022 titled as ‘Anurag Kumar S/o Ravindra Nath
       Sharma Vs. Trisha Singh’, pending before the Court of 7-Principal
       Judge, Family Court, Varanasi, U.P. to the Family Court at Pune,
       Maharashtra.
2.     The transfer petition was dismissed for want of prosecution on 26th
       July, 2023. Subsequently, vide order dated 21st August, 2023, the
       transfer petition was restored to its original number and on the request
       of learned counsel for the parties, the matter was forwarded to the
[2024] 5 S.C.R.                                                          569

                       Trisha Singh v. Anurag Kumar


     Supreme Court Mediation Centre for exploring the possibility of an
     amicable settlement between the parties. Pursuant to the efforts
     made by the Mediator, the parties had arrived at a settlement which
     was signed by the petitioner-wife and the respondent-husband
     before Shrabani Chakrabarty, Advocate/Mediator, Supreme Court
     Mediation Centre on 26th February, 2024. The relevant terms and
     conditions of the settlement agreement which in entirety shall form
     a part of this order are reproduced below: -
           “5. Both the parties hereto have arrived at an amicable
           settlement on the following terms and conditions for
           dissolution of marriage by mutual consent: -
           A.   That the respondent husband continued to pay
                certain expenses voluntary to the tune of Rs.20
                lakhs (Rupees twenty lakh only) from March 2020
                upto October 2023 for his child to the bank account
                of the petitioner-wife including the period the parties
                were not together. Mediation took place at great
                length between the parties and parties want to part
                away taking divorce. The respondent- husband has
                agreed to pay full and final alimony of Rs.1 Crore
                15 lakh (one crore and Fifteen lakhs only) to the
                petitioner-wife. The respondent husband has paid
                an amount of Rs.50 lakh to the petitioner wife on
                22.02.2024. The remaining alimony will be paid will
                be as under:
                (i)    Rs.50 Lakh (rupees fifty lakh) only shall
                       be paid to the petitioner-wife on or before
                       31.08.2024;
                (ii)   The remaining alimony of Rs. 15 lakh
                       (rupees fifteen lakh) only will be paid on
                       or before 31.12.2024.
                (iii) The gold and jewelries belonging to the
                      petitioner-wife kept in a locker at Bank
                      of India of Varanasi shall be taken by the
                      petitioner within 14th to 20th March 2024.
                      Petitioner will also collect silver items
                      given on marriage from the respondent-
                      husband.”
570                                                         [2024] 5 S.C.R.

                      Digital Supreme Court Reports


3.     It is thus manifest that there was a clear undertaking by the parties
       before the Mediator that they shall part ways peacefully.
4.     It is also clear that the respondent-husband had voluntarily paid a
       sum of Rs. 20 lakhs for the support of his child during the period
       from March, 2020 to October, 2023. The respondent-husband also
       paid a sum of Rs. 50 lakhs to the petitioner-wife in the terms of the
       settlement. The remaining amount of permanent alimony has been
       agreed to be paid as per the schedule indicated in the settlement
       deed. Out of this agreed amount, the respondent-husband has paid
       a sum of Rs. 50,00,000/- (fifty lacs) only to the petitioner-wife.
5.     However, today when the matter was taken up, this Court was
       apprised that the petitioner-wife seems to have resiled from the
       settlement agreement.
6.     Learned counsel for the petitioner-wife has affirmed that his client
       has stopped instructing him in the matter. Acting on the terms of
       the settlement, the respondent-husband has already withdrawn
       the matrimonial case on 23rd April, 2024 which fact is recorded in
       the order sheet of the Family Court placed on record with I.A. No.
       112620 of 2024 and thus he is abiding by the terms of settlement
       in letter and spirit.
7.     It seems, the petitioner-wife having taken advantage of the settlement
       executed before the Mediator has managed to get the matrimonial
       case instituted by the respondent-husband withdrawn. She has also
       accepted a sum of Rs.50 lakhs from the respondent-husband towards
       part payment of the permanent alimony and thereafter, she is trying
       to resile from the settlement without any justification. The conduct
       of the petitioner-wife is clearly, recalcitrant inasmuch as she has
       disregarded the terms and conditions agreed before the Mediator in
       the settlement proceedings which were undertaken pursuant to the
       directions of this Court. Not only this, because of her conduct, the
       respondent-husband has been put to grave disadvantage inasmuch
       as he has withdrawn the matrimonial case and has also paid a
       significant proportion of the permanent alimony to the petitioner-wife
       in terms of the settlement agreement.
8.     Learned counsel for the respondent-husband on instructions states
       that his client undertakes to abide by the remaining terms and
       conditions of the settlement agreement in letter and spirit and shall
       make due payments on the schedule dates if the marriage is dissolved.
[2024] 5 S.C.R.                                                           571

                        Trisha Singh v. Anurag Kumar


9.    A similar situation was examined by this Court in the case of Ruchi
      Agarwal v. Amit Kumar Agrawal and Others1, the relevant excerpts
      whereof read as follows: -
             “4. It is the above order of the High Court that is under
             challenge before us in this appeal. During the pendency
             of the proceedings before the courts below and in this
             Court, certain developments have taken place which
             have a material bearing on the merits of this appeal.
             The complaint which the appellant herein filed is dated
             10-4-2002. Thereafter, a divorce petition was filed by
             the appellant wife before the Family Court at Nainital.
             In the said divorce petition a compromise was arrived at
             between the parties in which it was stated that the first
             respondent husband was willing for a consent divorce
             and that the appellant wife had received all her stridhan
             and maintenance in lump sum. She also declared in
             the said compromise deed that she is not entitled to
             any maintenance in future. It is also stated in the said
             compromise deed that the parties to the proceedings
             would withdraw all criminal and civil complaints filed
             against each other which includes the criminal complaint
             filed by the appellant which is the subject-matter of this
             appeal. The said compromise deed contains annexures
             with the particulars of the items given to the appellant
             at the time of marriage and which were returned. The
             said compromise deed is signed by the appellant. But
             before any order could be passed on the basis of the said
             compromise petition, the appellant herein wrote a letter
             to the Family Court at Nainital which was received by the
             Family Court on 3-10-2003 wherein it was stated that she
             was withdrawing the compromise petition because she
             had not received the agreed amount. But subsequently
             when her statement was recorded by the Family Court,
             she withdrew the said letter of 3-10-2003 and stated before
             the court in her statement that she wanted a divorce and
             that there is no dispute in relation to any amount pending.
             The court, after recording the said statement, granted a


1    (2005) 3 SCC 299
572                                                       [2024] 5 S.C.R.

                  Digital Supreme Court Reports


       divorce under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act,
       dissolving the marriage by mutual consent by its order
       dated 3-3-2004.
       5. In the compromise petition, referred to hereinabove,
       both the parties had agreed to withdraw all the civil and
       criminal cases filed by each against the other. It is pursuant
       to this compromise, the above divorce as sought for by
       the appellant was granted by the husband and pursuant
       to the said compromise deed the appellant also withdrew
       Criminal Case No. 63 of 2002 on the file of the Family
       Court, Nainital which was a complaint filed under Section
       125 of the Criminal Procedure Code for maintenance. It
       is on the basis of the submission made on behalf of the
       appellant and on the basis of the terms of the compromise,
       the said case came to be dismissed. However, so far as
       the complaint under Sections 498-A, 323 and 506 IPC
       and under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act
       is concerned, which is the subject-matter of this appeal,
       the appellant did not take any steps to withdraw the same.
       It is in those circumstances, a quashing petition was filed
       before the High Court which came to be partially allowed
       on the ground of the territorial jurisdiction, against the said
       order the appellant has preferred this appeal.
       6. From the above-narrated facts, it is clear that in the
       compromise petition filed before the Family Court, the
       appellant admitted that she has received stridhan and
       maintenance in lump sum and that she will not be entitled
       to maintenance of any kind in future. She also undertook
       to withdraw all proceedings, civil and criminal, filed and
       initiated by her against the respondents within one month of
       the compromise deed, which included the complaint under
       Sections 498-A, 323 and 506 IPC and under Sections 3
       and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act from which complaint
       this appeal arises. In the said compromise, the respondent
       husband agreed to withdraw his petition filed under Section
       9 of the Hindu Marriage Act pending before the Senior
       Judge, Civil Division, Rampur and also agreed to give a
       consent divorce as sought for by the appellant.
[2024] 5 S.C.R.                                                           573

                      Trisha Singh v. Anurag Kumar


           7. It is based on the said compromise the appellant
           obtained a divorce as desired by her under Section 13-B
           of the Hindu Marriage Act and in partial compliance with
           the terms of the compromise she withdrew the criminal
           case filed under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure
           Code but for reasons better known to her she did not
           withdraw that complaint from which this appeal arises.
           That apart after the order of the High Court quashing the
           said complaint on the ground of territorial jurisdiction, she
           has chosen to file this appeal. It is in this background, we
           will have to appreciate the merits of this appeal.
           8. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant, however,
           contended that though the appellant had signed the
           compromise deed with the abovementioned terms in it, the
           same was obtained by the respondent husband and his
           family under threat and coercion and in fact she did not
           receive lump sum maintenance and her stridhan properties.
           We find it extremely difficult to accept this argument in the
           background of the fact that pursuant to the compromise
           deed the respondent husband has given her a consent
           divorce which she wanted, thus had performed his part
           of the obligation under the compromise deed. Even the
           appellant partially performed her part of the obligations
           by withdrawing her criminal complaint filed under Section
           125. It is true that she had made a complaint in writing to
           the Family Court where Section 125 CrPC proceedings
           were pending that the compromise deed was filed under
           coercion but she withdrew the same and gave a statement
           before the said court affirming the terms of the compromise
           which statement was recorded by the Family Court and the
           proceedings were dropped and a divorce was obtained.
           Therefore, we are of the opinion that the appellant
           having received the relief she wanted without contest
           on the basis of the terms of the compromise, we cannot
           now accept the argument of the learned counsel for the
           appellant. In our opinion, the conduct of the appellant
           indicates that the criminal complaint from which this
           appeal arises was filed by the wife only to harass the
           respondents.
574                                                        [2024] 5 S.C.R.

                          Digital Supreme Court Reports


               9. In view of the abovesaid subsequent events and
               the conduct of the appellant, it would be an abuse of
               the process of the court if the criminal proceedings
               from which this appeal arises is allowed to continue.
               Therefore, we are of the considered opinion to do
               complete justice, we should while dismissing this
               appeal also quash the proceedings arising from
               criminal case Cr. No. 224 of 2003 registered in Police
               Station Bilaspur (District Rampur) filed under Sections
               498-A, 323 and 506 IPC and under Sections 3 and 4
               of the Dowry Prohibition Act against the respondents
               herein. It is ordered accordingly. The appeal is
               disposed of.”
                                                  (emphasis supplied)
10. On going through the material available on record, we find that
    the matrimonial relations between the spouses have broken down
    irrevocably and there is no possibility of reconciliation and revival
    of the spousal relationship. Hence, looking at the conduct of the
    petitioner-wife as indicated supra and the other attending facts and
    circumstances, we are inclined to exercise the powers under Article
    142 of the Constitution of India so as to grant decree of divorce and
    hence, the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent is
    dissolved.
11. However, it is made clear that the respondent in terms of the settlement
    shall make the remaining payment to the petitioner.
12. The petition is allowed in these terms.
13. Decree be prepared accordingly.
14. No order as to costs.
15. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

       Result of the case: Petition allowed.



       †
           Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey