Supreme Court Dissolves Eight-Year Marital Strife, Citing Irretrievable Breakdown and Quashing Criminal Proceedings.


05 August 2025 Divorce Law >> Family Law  

In a recent and decisive judgment of Anurag Vijaykumar Goel v/s State Of Maharashtra & Another, the Supreme Court of India brought an end to an eight-year legal battle between a husband and wife, whose marital life had lasted a mere one year and nine months. This was the second marriage for both parties, and the court observed that their failed attempt at a new life together had resulted in a protracted and acrimonious legal fight. The case, which began with irreconcilable disputes and allegations of domestic violence, was ultimately settled by the Supreme Court using its special powers under Article 142 of the Constitution.

The Heart of the Dispute:

The core of the conflict revolved around allegations of domestic violence and disputes over property and alimony. The husband, an individual with an autistic child from his first marriage, alleged constant harassment by his wife, which he claimed forced him to leave their Mumbai apartment and move to Faridabad to live with his parents. In contrast, the wife claimed she was subjected to continuous intimidation and domestic violence, and that her husband had abandoned her without any means of support.
 
 

The disputes led to multiple legal proceedings, including a criminal case filed by the wife under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and another under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005. At the same time, the husband had filed for divorce. While a settlement for a divorce by mutual consent was initially reached in 2022, the wife later withdrew her consent before the second motion, leading to further litigation.

Supreme Court’s Intervention and Analysis:

The Supreme Court, after hearing both parties and reviewing the case history, concluded that there was absolutely no possibility of reconciliation. The court was persuaded that the marriage had "irretrievably broken down" and was "emotionally dead and beyond salvation."

A key part of the court's analysis focused on the allegations under Section 498-A of the IPC. The judgment noted that the criminal complaint, filed a year after the couple’s separation, contained "common-place, banal and vague" allegations without any specific instances of cruelty. The court found that the charges were a result of "marital squabbles, skirmishes and bickerings blown out of proportion." Citing the precedent set in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, the court exercised its power to quash the criminal proceedings, stating that the allegations did not prima facie constitute an offense.

Final Verdict and Property Settlement:

To do complete justice to both parties, the court invoked Article 142 of the Constitution to dissolve the marriage. It meticulously reviewed the terms of the earlier settlement agreement, which the wife had resiled from, and deemed them to be fair and just. The court took into account the husband's responsibility for his autistic child and his reduced financial capacity after leaving his job. Conversely, it acknowledged the wife's educational qualifications and her potential to be gainfully employed.

The final judgment included a detailed property settlement:

  • The husband will transfer ownership of their Mumbai apartment, along with two car parking spaces, to the wife via a gift deed.
  • He will also pay all outstanding maintenance charges for the apartment up to September 1, 2025.
  • The court stipulated that the divorce would only be finalized upon the husband's full compliance with these terms.
  • All other pending legal proceedings between the parties, both civil and criminal, were ordered to be closed.
The judgment brings a final resolution to a long and bitter legal battle, allowing both parties to move forward and live their lives independently.


Section 498A., Indian Penal Code - 1860  

Indian Penal Code, 1860  

Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005