JALDI

Jaldi-Vidhi

Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan

Case details and hearing information from the Constitution Bench Pendency Portal.

607

Message
show

Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan

This case deals with the Supreme Court’s powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to dissolve a marriage between consenting parties.

Petitioners Arguments
Since no orders have been passed by the Constitution Bench, petitioner’s arguments are not yet available.
Responders Arguments
Since no orders have been passed by the Constitution Bench, respondent’s arguments are not yet available.
Last Listed On
2023-05-01
Start Date
2016-06-29
End Date
2023-05-01
Card Stage Date
2023-05-01
Review Petition No
T.P.(C) No.1118/2014
Case Status
Archive
Bench Status
Constituted
Subject Matter
Constitution
Disposal Time
6 years, 10 months, 3 days

5 Judge Bench

Judgment delivered

Consider As Stage Of Pendency
false

Date of institution of case

Date of reference to 5 Judge Bench

Judgement pronounced

A petition for transfer of a divorce case pending before the Family Court Ernakulam (Kerala) to the Family Court Pune (Maharashtra) was filed before the Supreme Court. The Court allowed the petition and ordered to issue notice meanwhile granting stay on the proceedings pending before the Family Court. On 10-11-2014, the Supreme Court issued another notice granting a further stay on the proceedings pending before the Family Court Kerala and Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II at Aluva, Kerala. On 23-03-2015, the Court ordered to issue the transfer petitions filed by the respondent before an appropriate bench. The Court on 06-04-2015 permitted the parties to file the joint memo of settlement which was to be reached between the parties within one week and issued notice to the Attorney General requesting him to address the issues framed by the Court or incidental issues thereto. On 06-05-2015 , the Court took note of the fact that both the parties responded well to the suggestion of settlement outside the Court and settled the matter and filed a joint application with the terms of settlement. The Court further observed that facts and circumstances indicate that there has been an irretrievable breakdown of marriage and the parties do not have any issue with taking divorce and in such circumstances, requiring the parties to go to the jurisdictional Family Court to invoke the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 to seek a decree of divorce would be a lengthy process considering the fact that the Family Courts in the country are clogged with a huge volume of similar litigation. Therefore, the Court dissolved the marriage under Article 142 of the Constitution. However, the court framed two questions of law arising from the matter and decided to let the petition remain pending so as to allow them to determine the concerned questions of law in the instant matter. On 29-06-2016 , the Court referred the matter to a larger bench.

What broad parameters should the Supreme Court consider while exercising powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to dissolve a marriage between consenting parties without referring the parties to a Family Court to wait for the mandatory period prescribed under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955? Should the exercise of such jurisdiction under Article 142 not be made at all or should such exercise be left to be determined by the facts of every case?

Article 142 of the Constitution

Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

The Attorney General submitted before the Supreme Court that the issues arising from the transfer petitions are substantial questions of law and therefore, should be heard by the Constitution bench of at least five judges. The Court agreed with his submission and referred the matter to a larger bench. The Court placed reliance upon a judgment of another Constitution Bench in the case of Pradip Chandra Parija v. Pramod Chandra Patnaik (2002) 1 SCC 1 , wherein it was opined that in a situation when a two judge bench is of the opinion that provisions of Article 145(3) are attracted, the bench may refer the matter directly to a Constitution Bench.

NA

Redefining Divorce Dynamics and Decoding Judicial Boundaries: Unravelling the Impact of Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan

Redefining Divorce Dynamics and Decoding Judicial Boundaries: Unravelling the Impact of Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan
Source Of Info
DNLU Student Law Journal
Date Of Fr
2023-11-11

Shilpa Sailesh Judgment: A Step Towards No-Fault Divorce?

Shilpa Sailesh Judgment: A Step Towards No-Fault Divorce?
Source Of Info
Supreme Court Observer
Date Of Fr
2023-06-03

SC’s Power To Directly Grant Divorce: Judgement in Plain English

SC’s Power To Directly Grant Divorce: Judgement in Plain English
Source Of Info
Supreme Court Observer
Date Of Fr
2023-05-01