Manpreet Kaur v. Harjyot Singh Bhalla
T.P.(Crl.) No. 569 of 2022
Key Issue / Question of Law
Whether the Supreme Court can dissolve a marriage by mutual consent under Article 142 of the Constitution of India without requiring the parties to comply with the statutory waiting period under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, where the parties have voluntarily settled all disputes including payment of Rs. 4 crores as permanent alimony.
Ratio Decidendi
The Supreme Court, in exercise of its plenary power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, can dissolve a marriage by mutual consent without requiring the parties to undergo the statutory waiting period of six to eighteen months prescribed under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Where the parties have voluntarily entered into a comprehensive settlement agreement, have been living separately for a considerable period, and the marriage has irretrievably broken down, the Court may waive procedural requirements to do complete justice. The Court may also quash all pending matrimonial proceedings between the parties and direct the release of settlement amounts deposited with the Registry. However, parties must strictly adhere to the terms of settlement, including confidentiality and non-interference obligations, failing which it will be treated as contempt of court.
Holding / Decision
The Supreme Court disposed of the Transfer Petition and accepted the Memorandum of Understanding dated 10 May 2024 between the parties. The Court ordered the release of Rs. 4 crores deposited with the Registry to the wife with accrued interest. Exercising power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, the Court dissolved the marriage by mutual consent without requiring the statutory waiting period. All pending proceedings between the parties concerning the matrimonial dispute were deemed quashed. The parties were directed to adhere strictly to the settlement terms, including maintaining confidentiality and not interfering in each other's personal or professional lives. The connected Special Leave Petition was disposed of as infructuous.
Background & Facts
The parties were married on 13 March 2011 according to Hindu rites and resided together in New Delhi. Over time, their relationship deteriorated, leading to separate lives. The wife filed an application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 on 24 March 2014 and another case under Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1956 for annulment on 19 December 2014. The husband filed a criminal complaint on 3 March 2021, which was the subject of the transfer petition seeking transfer from Delhi to Chandigarh. During the pendency of proceedings, the Court recorded a settlement on 8 May 2024, under which the husband agreed to pay Rs. 4 crores as one-time full and final settlement covering alimony, stridhan, maintenance, and residence rights. Subsequently, a Memorandum of Understanding was executed on 10 May 2024. However, a violation of the stay order occurred when police officials visited the wife's father's home in Chandigarh on 27 July 2024, leading to an interlocutory application seeking action against the respondents and police officials.
Statutes Involved
- Article 142, Constitution of India — Empowers the Supreme Court to pass any decree or order necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it, including orders that may override statutory provisions
- Section 13-B, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — Provides for divorce by mutual consent, requiring a waiting period of six months (extendable to eighteen months) between the first and second motion
- Section 12, Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 — Provides for filing of complaint before the Magistrate alleging domestic violence
- Section 12, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — Provides for restitution of conjugal rights and other matrimonial remedies
- Section 506, Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Penalises criminal intimidation
Full Analysis
Premium Content
Subscribe to access the full analysis, practical implications, and related case mapping.
Subscribe — ₹99/monthAlready a subscriber? Sign inAdvocate's Note — Agarawal Associates
Professional insight for advocates on how to deploy this judgment in practice...
Subscribe to access the Advocate's Note.
Key Conditional Rule / Important Caveat
This judgment applies ONLY where (a) the parties have voluntarily entered into a comprehensive written settlement agreement covering all financial claims (alimony, maintenance, stridhan, property rights), (b) the settlement amount has been deposited with the Supreme Court Registry, (c) the Court has interacted with the parties personally to confirm voluntary consent, and (d) both parties are educated and aware of their rights. The waiver of the Section 13-B waiting period under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 is NOT automatic and is granted only in exercise of the plenary power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India. The Supreme Court may refuse to exercise this power if the settlement is unfair, if one party appears to be under coercion, or if there are minor children whose welfare is not adequately addressed. This judgment does NOT apply to divorces being sought in trial courts or High Courts, which must still comply with the statutory waiting period under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
Courtroom Arguments
For Petitioner
Marriage Irretrievably Broken Down, Settlement Reached — Manpreet Kaur
The parties have been living separately for over a decade, have voluntarily settled all disputes with payment of Rs. 4 crores, and both consent to divorce.
For Respondent
Settlement Accepted, Marriage Dissolved by Mutual Consent — Manpreet Kaur
The respondent-husband has fully complied with the settlement terms, deposited Rs. 4 crores with the Registry, and consents to the dissolution of marriage.
Found this useful? Share it with your colleagues.
One tap sends the case name, citation, key issue and link.
Disclaimer: This summary is prepared by Agarawal Associates for informational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice. For legal matters, consult a qualified advocate. © 2026 Agarawal Associates — apexdigest.in