Anurag Vijaykumar Goel Vs State of Maharashtra & Anr. (Supreme Court of India)
The Supreme Court considered an appeal arising from the Bombay High Court’s refusal to quash criminal proceedings under Section 498A IPC and an application seeking dissolution of marriage under Article 142 of the Constitution. The parties, both previously divorced, had lived together for about one year and nine months before becoming estranged and engaging in multiple litigations. During divorce proceedings before the Family Court, they entered into a mediated settlement providing for mutual consent divorce, transfer of the husband’s Mumbai apartment with two parking spaces to the wife, withdrawal of pending cases, and no future litigation. The first motion under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act was recorded, but before the second motion the wife withdrew her consent and later sought permanent alimony in addition to ownership of the apartment.
The Supreme Court held that the parties had been living separately for several years, mediation had failed, and the relationship had irretrievably broken down, making exercise of powers under Article 142 appropriate. Examining the allegations underlying the FIR under Sections 498A and 406 IPC, the Court found them to comprise only general allegations arising from ordinary matrimonial disputes and observed that the High Court had not examined the other grounds urged for quashing. Applying the principles governing quashing of criminal proceedings, the Court quashed the pending criminal case. It also dissolved the marriage under Article 142, subject to compliance with specified settlement terms, including payment of outstanding maintenance charges to the housing society, execution and registration of a gift deed transferring the apartment and parking spaces to the wife, and closure of all pending civil and criminal proceedings arising from the marriage. The Court declined the wife’s additional claim for permanent alimony, noting the earlier settlement, her qualifications and earning potential, and the transfer of the unencumbered apartment as adequate compensation. The appeal and the Article 142 application were accordingly allowed, subject to fulfilment of the stipulated conditions.
