Case Note & Summary
Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 142 – Supreme Court exercised its power to do complete justice – Marriage lasted for only four months – Long separation led to acrimony and multiple litigations – Divorce granted on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage – Husband directed to pay Rs. 25,00,000 as permanent alimony (Para 5, 6, 7).
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 125 – Maintenance granted by the High Court enhanced from Rs. 10,000 to Rs. 15,000 per month – Wife sought further enhancement – Supreme Court directed lump sum alimony instead of continued monthly maintenance (Para 2, 7).
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Section 13-B – Considered legislative intent behind mutual consent divorce – Supreme Court observed that exceptional hardship and prolonged litigation justify waiver of second motion – Invoked Article 142 to dissolve the marriage in absence of mutual consent (Para 5).
Issues::a. Whether the High Court erred in remanding the divorce petition while ignoring cruelty as a ground.b. Whether Article 142 of the Constitution of India can be invoked to grant divorce despite opposition.c. Whether maintenance should be continued or converted into lump sum alimony.
Decision:
Divorce granted under Article 142 due to irretrievable breakdown of marriage. Husband directed to pay Rs. 25,00,000 within six months, in addition to Rs. 2,00,000 already deposited. Any pending criminal or civil litigation between the parties to be closed upon payment. Matter to be listed after six months to ensure compliance.Subjects:Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage – Article 142 – Permanent Alimony – Maintenance Enhancement – Divorce Without Mutual Consent – Prolonged Litigation
Issue of Consideration: Gudivada Seshagiri Rao Versus Gudivada Ashalatha & Anr.
Premium Content
The Issue of Consideration is only available to subscribed members.
Subscribe Now to access critical case issues
