Vineet Taneja Vs Ritu Johari & Anr. (Supreme Court of India)
The Supreme Court considered an application filed by the wife seeking to set aside the Registrar’s lodgement order dated 12.07.2023, which had rejected registration of her miscellaneous application. The wife had sought dissolution of the marriage by invoking the Court’s extraordinary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India. The miscellaneous application had been filed in proceedings originally instituted by the husband, whose matter had already been dismissed by the Supreme Court on 28.03.2023. The husband opposed the application.
The Court noted that the original proceedings before it arose from the husband’s challenge to an interim order dated 03.02.2023 passed by the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in CM No. 872 of 2023 in LPA No. 603 of 2022. After hearing the parties on several occasions, the Court concluded that the marriage had irretrievably broken down and that no possibility of reconciliation remained.
The Court observed that the relationship had deteriorated to such an extent that its continuation was causing emotional and mental suffering to both the husband and the wife, as well as to their only child. The Court also noted the existence of criminal proceedings initiated by the wife against the husband and his family members.
Considering these circumstances, the Supreme Court held that it was appropriate to exercise its extraordinary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to bring the matrimonial dispute to an end. The miscellaneous application was allowed, and the Court directed that the marriage between the parties stood dissolved.
The Court further directed that the following proceedings would stand quashed and set aside:
- FIR No. 40 of 2013 registered at Police Station, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi.
- Complaint Case No. 461282/2013 titled Ritu Taneja v. Vineet Taneja &, filed under Sections 9B and 37(2)(C) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
- Petition for Restitution of Conjugal Rights being HMA No. 1010/2012.
The Supreme Court clarified that the decree dissolving the marriage would have no bearing on Guardianship Petition No. 48 of 2012, which would be decided independently by the Family Court in accordance with law. It also clarified that the decree of divorce was granted solely on account of the irretrievable breakdown of the marriage and should not be treated as an observation on the conduct of either party. The decree could not be used in any pending or future civil or other proceedings except to establish that the parties had been divorced due to the irretrievable breakdown of their marriage.
The Court directed the Registry to draw up the decree accordingly, permitted the applicant to appear and argue in person, allowed the miscellaneous application, and disposed of all pending applications.
FULL TEXT OF THE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT/ORDER
1. This application has been filed by the applicant-Ritu Johari (Wife) with prayers to set aside lodgement order dated 12.07.2023 passed by the learned Registrar under Order XV Rule 5 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 and to pass an order for registration of application M.A.Diary No. 24184 of 2023. It appears that the applicant-wife had filed M.A. Diary No. 24184 of 2023 in a matter, which had been filed by the husband and which had been dismissed by this Court vide order dated 28.03.2023. The miscellaneous application had been filed by the wife seeking dissolution of the marriage and praying this Court to exercise powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India. However, the same was rejected by the learned Registrar vide order dated 12.07.2023, against which present miscellaneous application has been filed by the applicant-wife.
2. The application is vehemently opposed by the non-applicant-Vineet Taneja (Husband).
3. The initial proceedings were filed before this Court by the non-applicant-Vineet Taneja challenging interim order dated 03.02.2023 in CM No. 872 of 2023 in LPA No. 603 of 2022, whereby the Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi had passed certain interim directions.
4. The parties have been heard on a number of occasions by one of us (B.R. Gavai, J.).
5. During the course of several hearings, including the hearing today, this Court has come to the conclusion that the relationship between the parties is irretrievably broken. The relationship has reached such a stage that no reconciliation appears to be possible.
6. We find that the relationship has deteriorated to such a level that apart from emotionally and mentally causing suffering to both of them, i.e. husband and wife, the continuation of their relationship is also causing suffering to their only child.
7. We further find that there are certain criminal proceedings filed by the applicant-wife against the non-applicant-husband and his family members.
8. We are, therefore, of the considered view that it will be in the interest of justice that this Court should exercise its extraordinary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India and give an end to the marriage between Ritu Johari (Wife) and Vineet Taneja (Husband) and also the criminal matters pending between the parties.
9. We, accordingly, allow the miscellaneous application and direct that the marriage between Ritu Johari (Wife) and Vineet Taneja (Husband) stands dissolved.
10. We further direct that the following criminal proceedings filed by either of the parties shall stand quashed and set aside:
(i) FIR No. 40 of 2013 registered at Police Station, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi.
(ii) Complaint Case bearing No.461282/2013, titled as Ritu Taneja v. Vineet Taneja & , filed by the respondent no.2 herein under Section 9B and 37(2)(C) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
(iii) Petition for Restitution of Conjugal right being HMA No. 1010/2012.
11. We clarify that the decree of dissolution of marriage that we have passed will have no bearing on the Guardianship Petition No. 48 of 2012, which shall be decided by the learned Family Court in accordance with law.
12. We further clarify that we have passed the decree of divorce taking into consideration the irretrievable break down of the marriage and the same should not be construed as an observation on the conduct of any of the parties and the said decree would not be used by either of the party in any of the civil or other proceedings pending or filed against either of them, except to establish that there has been a divorce due to irretrievable breakdown of marriage.
13. The Registry of this Court to draw a decree accordingly.
1. Permission to appear and argue in person is allowed.
2. The miscellaneous application is allowed in terms of the signed order.
3. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.
