Miss Lucy
← All judgments

Mansi Khatri vs Gaurav Khatri

Supreme Court19 May 2023Sanjay Kishan Kaul · Prashant Kumar Mishra

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

Where parties to matrimonial proceedings have suffered an irretrievable breakdown of marriage and agree to mutual consent divorce, the Supreme Court may exercise its power under Article 142 of the Constitution to quash related criminal and civil proceedings filed by the parties against each other, grant a decree of mutual consent divorce, and quantify permanent alimony on the basis of the financial position and means of the parties as placed on record, even where the parties have not reached agreement on the quantum of alimony. Where permanent alimony has been quantified by the court in a mutual consent divorce decree, the revival of quashed criminal and civil proceedings may be made conditional upon non-payment of such alimony within the stipulated time-period.

Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.

Judgment

As delivered

1

NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

Transfer Petition (Civil) No. 1595 OF 2022

MANSI KHATRI Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

GAURAV KHATRI Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T

AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH,J.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. This Transfer Petition has been filed by the

Petitioner-wife seeking transfer of the Divorce

Petition No.802 of 2022, filed by the Respondent-

husband under Section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage

Act, 1955, titled “Gaurav Khatri versus Mansi Khatri”

pending before the learned Principal Judge, Family Signature Not Verified Charanjeet Kaur Date: 2023.05.19 Court, Indore, Madhya Pradesh to the Family Court, Digitally signed by

17:46:21 IST Reason:

Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh.

2 3. The parties married on 12.12.2016 and separated

on 29.10.2021 without the birth of any child.

Although the present Petition, as filed, is limited

to the transfer of the aforesaid Divorce Petition

viz. No.802 of 2022, filed by the Respondent, but the

petitioner's father, Mr Shyam Krishna Mehrotra, has

also filed a First Information Report No.0234 of 2022

registered at Police Station Ghazipur, Uttar Pradesh

for offences punishable under Section 498A, 323 and

354 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3 & 4

of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The petitioner

has herself filed Maintenance Case No.749 of 2022

under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,

1973, which is pending before the learned Family

Court, Lucknow.

4. The order passed by this Court on 07.12.2022

records that learned counsel for both the parties had

taken the stand that they were desirous of settlement

through mediation and thus, the matter stood referred

to the Supreme Court Mediation Centre. Though the

mediation was unsuccessful but before this Court on 3

14.03.2023, learned counsel for the respondent had

submitted that he was willing for a mutual consent

divorce, but no agreement could be reached insofar as

permanent alimony was concerned, and thus on that

date, learned counsel for the petitioner took time to

obtain instructions as to whether the petitioner was

agreeable to a mutual consent divorce.

5. Even on 04.05.2023, when judgment was reserved

by us, the order records that the “only question is

the extent of permanent alimony on grant of divorce”.

Further, it was noted that learned counsel for the

parties had left it to this Court to fix the

permanent alimony on the basis of materials placed on

record. This was in the background of the stand taken

by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the

petitioner desired Rs.70,00,000/- (Rupees Seventy

Lakhs) as permanent alimony, whereas the respondent

had offered only Rs.25,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty-Five

Lakhs).

6. Though we would have ordinarily not liked to

disclose the pleaded financial position of the 4

parties herein, yet noting that this Court has to

quantify the permanent alimony, it is deemed

appropriate to summarise their financial status

hereinbelow:

Petitioner-wife:

Bank A/c Balance Rs.20,712/- Monthly Expenses Rs.25,000/- No Assets (only Mangal Sutra & engagement ring) No Income.

Financially dependent on her father.

Respondent-husband:

Annual Emoluments Rs.15,90,788/- Take Home Salary Rs.87,538/- per month LIC Policy Premium Paid Rs.2,61,364/-

EPF Account Rs.4,47,240/-

PPF Account Rs.3,28,923/-

CBI A/c Balance Rs.5,515/-

SBI A/c Balance Rs.62,629/- ICICI Bank A/c Balance Rs.30,744/- Bank of Baroda A/c Balance Rs.10,417/- LIC Policy (Wife) Premium Paid Rs.1,40,592/- Car Loan Rs.5,75,000/- @EMI of Rs.8,850/- per month His parents (mother and father) are Dependants.

7. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the

Court is of the opinion that the parties, in

praesenti, husband and wife have suffered an

irretrievable breakdown of marriage. In such view, in

order to render complete justice, it is a fit case to

exercise the power vested under Article 142 of the 5

Constitution of India by closing all cases filed by

the parties against each other and also granting a

decree of mutual consent divorce.

8. Accordingly, FIR No.0234 of 2022 registered at

Police Station Ghazipur, Uttar Pradesh and

Maintenance Case No.749 of 2022 filed under Section

125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which is

pending before the learned Family Court, Lucknow are

quashed. Divorce Petition No.802 of 2022 shall stand

withdrawn.

9. Parties are granted a decree of divorce by

mutual consent. Decree to be issued after payment of

permanent alimony.

10. The amount of permanent alimony to be paid by

the respondent to the petitioner is quantified at

Rs.35,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty-Five Lakhs), to be paid

within six months from today.

11. It is made clear that if the permanent alimony

quantified supra is not paid by the respondent to the

petitioner within the stipulated time-period, FIR 6

No.0234 of 2022 and Maintenance Case No.749 of 2022

shall stand revived.

12. The Transfer Petition stands disposed of in

terms aforementioned.

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

closed.

..................… J.

[SANJAY KISHAN KAUL]

.....................J. [AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH]

NEW DELHI MAY 19, 2023

This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.

Research this judgment with Miss Lucy

Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.

Try Miss Lucy free