Gudivada Seshagiri Rao vs Gudiavada Ashalatha

2025 INSC 195 Non-reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. OF 2025 (@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) NOS. 6954-6955 of 2023)

Gudivada Seshagiri Rao …Appellant -Versus- Gudivada Ashalatha & Anr. …Respondents WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2025 (@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO. 1555 of 2024)

JUDGMENT

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.

Leave granted.

2. The appellant is the husband and the respondent

is the wife, who have spent a fair share of their life fighting in courts.

Allegations and counter-allegations galore, are raised despite the fact

that they have had a matrimonial life for just about four months. One of Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by NITIN TALREJA Date: 2025.02.12

the appeals is filed against the common order in the two Criminal 09:53:14 IST Reason:

Revision Petitions filed before the High Court against the order 1 granting maintenance of Rs. 10,000/- to the wife. The husband

challenged the grant while the wife sought enhancement, to double the

amount in the revisions filed. After enhancement in the revision filed

by the wife, the maintenance awarded stood at Rs. 15,000/- per month.

The other appeal is against the order of remand made by the High

Court, from an order rejecting the prayer of the husband for a divorce

on the ground of desertion and cruelty.

3. The High Court in the appeal from the order

rejecting divorce, framed two issues for consideration. First, whether

the trial court was in error in treating the divorce petition as one filed

on the ground only of desertion and not on the ground of cruelty and

then, whether the trial court erred in finding the marriage between the

appellant and the respondent as one performed under Christian

customs and rites; thus, making inapplicable the provisions of the

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, under which the Divorce Petition was filed.

The High Court found that the trial court seriously erred in considering

only the case of desertion put forth by the husband and rejecting the

claim for divorce; while glossing over the ground of cruelty. It was held

that mere failure to prove desertion cannot be taken as a failure to

prove the ground of cruelty. On the question of the marriage having

been performed as per Christian rites, it was found that the trial court

2 egregiously misdirected itself in having considered an averment in the

bail application; that the husband wanted to be released on bail prior

to Christmas, while ignoring the oral evidence proffered by the

husband and the caste certificate produced, as also the document

indicating the auspicious time for the marriage as prepared by a

Purohit, which documents clearly proved the fact that the husband was

a Hindu. That the wife is a Hindu is not disputed at all. The High Court

hence ordered a remand setting aside the Judgment and Decree

rejecting the HMOP providing a further opportunity to the parties to

adduce evidence on the two points on which the trial court order was

set aside.

4. On facts, suffice it to notice that the marriage

between the parties happened, on 27.05.1999 and soon thereafter the

couple travelled to the husband’s place of work at Assam. As we notice

from the allegations and counter allegations made; regarding what

transpired prior to the marriage and after a brief tumultuous period of

four months, the couple separated. On their separation, they had

different versions; with the husband claiming that the wife left him

abruptly on 01.11.1999 and the wife asserting that the husband

unceremoniously evicted her from the matrimonial home on

31.10.1999. The fact remains that they have been separated from then,

3 after which commenced the series of litigation. As of now, both have

passed their prime and we were of the opinion that there should be a

quietus in the matter which would also release both the parties from the

trauma of an agonizing marriage; which was a non-starter.

5. We were of the opinion that a quietus would be

possible only by severing the marriage ties but at the same time

ensuring that the wife, who was in an employment before marriage and

presumably left it to move out with her husband to his work place, is

not left in the lurch. We are fortified in this view by Shilpa Sailesh Vs.

Varun Sreenivasan1 which expounded on the ambit and scope of

Article 142 of the Constitution of India, which enables ‘complete

justice’ in a ‘cause or matter’, in relation to matrimonial matters;

specifically, the provision to sever marital ties on mutual consent under

the Hindu Marriage Act. The legislative intent behind incorporating

sub-section (2) to Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 was

found, to enable time to the parties to introspect and consider their

decision to separate, before a second motion is moved; when a decree

of divorce is sought on a joint petition filed by the parties. The

Constitutional Bench noticed cases of exceptional hardship where after

some years of acrimonious litigations and prolonged suffering, parties

1 [2023] 5 S.C.R. 165

4 jointly pray for dissolution of marriage and seek a waiver of the need

to make a second motion; where it could be allowed when the divorce

is inevitable on account of irreconcilable differences evident from the

allegations and aspersions made against each other and in certain

cases by reason of the multiple litigations making the continuation of

the marital relationship an impossibility. The said finding was on the

powers of the Court in a joint application for divorce on mutual consent.

6. The Bench also dwelt upon the question whether

Article 142 of the Constitution of India could be invoked, even upon the

prayer of one of the spouses, when the Court is satisfied that there is

complete and irretrievable breakdown of marriage notwithstanding

the opposition to a divorce by the other spouse. It was held that though

grant of divorce on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage

is not a matter of right, but a discretionary remedy which has to be

exercised with great care and caution, keeping in mind several factors

ensuring that ‘complete justice’ is done to both parties. Though the

Bench refused to codify the various factors, which could curtail the

exercise of jurisdiction, sufficient guidelines have been laid down to

invoke the powers under Article 142 to do ‘complete justice’ to both the

parties when the Court is fully convinced and satisfied that the

5 marriage is totally ‘unworkable, emotionally dead and beyond salvation’

[sic].

7. We have considered the matter in the light of the

observations made by the Constitution Bench. In the present case the

marriage was held way back in the year 1999 and the couple remained

together for only about four months. Long separation has not resulted

in an attitude of ‘forget and forgive’; but on the contrary has fueled into

further acrimony. Though living apart, the bitterness has continued

and escalated to spread over in the form of litigations. There are no

children involved, fortunately, and both the parties are educated. The

husband is working in a public sector undertaking and the wife though

unemployed is a post graduate. We cannot but notice that despite her

educational qualification, it is too late in life to establish herself in a

profession and employment to ensure a decent livelihood. We are of

the opinion, looking at the facts of the case and on a bare reading of the

allegations and counter allegations that come forth in the pleadings,

that there is no salvation possible and the relationship is practically

dead and emotionally irretrievable. We are only concerned with

providing adequate alimony for the wife to ensure that the wife is not

left to fend for herself and both parties are not saddled again with the

existing or further litigations. We, hence, on the totality of the

6 circumstances direct that the parties be granted divorce on grounds of

irretrievable breakdown of marriage; but subject to the condition that

the appellant husband pays an amount of Rs.25,00,000 (Rupees Twenty

Five lacs only) within a period of six months from today. The amount of

Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two lacs only) deposited before this Court as

per order issued on 23.01.2024 in Civil Appeal No._________ of

2025@Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.1555/2024 shall be over and

above Rs.25,00,000 (Rupees Twenty Five lacs only) awarded to the

respondent-wife and she shall be entitled to withdraw the same with

interest accrued, immediately. On the further payment of Rs.25,00,000

(Rupees Twenty Five lacs only), there shall be effective a divorce

between the parties, on the grounds stated hereinabove and either of

the spouses would be entitled to produce the aforesaid judgment with

proof of payment of the directed amounts before any court before

which either criminal or civil proceedings are pending, in relation to

the marriage, so as to bring a quietus to the same; which the concerned

court shall direct to be closed on the settlement directed by this Court.

8. We dispose of the appeals with the above

directions setting aside both the impugned orders. Though the matters

are disposed of, the matters shall be placed before the Court after six

months to ensure compliance of the orders passed by us.

7

9. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand

disposed of.

…..…………..……..………..,J.

[B.R. GAVAI]

…..…………..……..………..,J.

[K. VINOD CHANDRAN]

NEW DELHI;

FEBRUARY 07, 2025.

8 9