Supreme Court’s Exercise of Article 142 Power to Dissolve Marriage: A Landmark Example of Mediation-Led Resolution
A recent Supreme Court of India order in Transfer Petition (Civil) No. 2742/2024 offers a clear and instructive model of how the apex court’s extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution can be invoked to grant mutual consent divorce — while simultaneously terminating a web of inter-linked civil and criminal proceedings through a comprehensive settlement.
Background: How the Case Reached the Supreme Court
The dispute arose from a marriage solemnised under Hindu rites in July 2021. The couple resided together for only a brief period before irreconcilable differences emerged, leading to separation by December 2021.
From that point forward, both parties and their respective family members became embroiled in an extensive array of litigation — spanning divorce petitions, domestic violence complaints, FIRs, maintenance petitions, and criminal cases across multiple courts in Delhi, Ghaziabad, and Uttar Pradesh.
A prior mutual divorce petition had been filed before a Family Court in Delhi, and the first motion was allowed in 2023. However, due to continuing differences, the parties did not file the second motion.
This triggered the filing of a contested divorce petition by the husband before the Principal Family Court, Ghaziabad, under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The wife, in response, filed a Transfer Petition before the Supreme Court under Section 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking transfer of the Ghaziabad proceedings to a Delhi court.
The Supreme Court’s Intervention: Referral to Mediation
In a significant step, the Supreme Court in March 2025 referred the matter to the Supreme Court Mediation Centre. This referral reflects the court’s growing institutional commitment to ADR (Alternative Dispute Resolution) as the first resort in matrimonial disputes — particularly where the parties had already lived apart for over three years and there appeared to be an irretrievable breakdown of the marriage.
“The mediation centre conducted multiple comprehensive sessions between April and May 2025. The Settlement Agreement was signed in person by both parties, their family members, respective advocates, and the mediator — signalling a holistic resolution rather than a narrow legal decree.”
Mediation sessions were held on five separate dates over approximately six weeks, culminating in a physical signing session in May 2025. The outcome was a comprehensive Settlement Agreement addressing not just the dissolution of marriage, but also the financial settlement, withdrawal of all inter-linked litigation, and a mutual non-contact and non-defamation framework.
Key Terms of the Settlement Agreement
The Settlement Agreement reached at the Supreme Court Mediation Centre embodied the following principal terms:
The financial settlement involved a lump sum payment by the husband to the wife as full and final resolution of all claims — including permanent alimony, stridhan, maintenance (past, present, and future), and any other claim whatsoever.
The court record confirms that this amount had already been paid by the time the matter came up for hearing on 29th October 2025.
Critically, the settlement also addressed the entire portfolio of litigation between the parties and their families, providing that both sides would withdraw all pending cases or give no-objection affidavits for their disposal.
The agreement further contained a forward-looking clause: any undiscovered pending proceeding not in the knowledge of either party at the time of signing would also be deemed settled.
A non-contact and non-defamation clause was incorporated to ensure that both parties and their family members would refrain from contacting each other through any channel — social media, postal communication, email, or through relatives.
Neither party would enquire into the other’s whereabouts, work profile, or personal life. RTI applications concerning the other party or their family members were also expressly barred.
Invocation of Article 142: The Constitutional Dimension
The most doctrinally significant aspect of this order is the court’s exercise of jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, read with Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Article 142 empowers the Supreme Court to pass any order “necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it.
” In matrimonial matters, the Supreme Court has, over time, developed a robust jurisprudence of invoking this power to grant divorce by mutual consent — even where the statutory waiting period under Section 13B has not elapsed, or where procedural requirements have not been strictly met.
“Article 142 proceedings before the Supreme Court offer a unique mechanism: they allow parties to obtain a final divorce decree in a single, definitive proceeding — bypassing the ordinary two-motion process under Section 13B — provided the court is satisfied of genuine mutual consent and irretrievable breakdown.”
In the present case, the bench comprising Hon’ble Mr. Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Mehta was satisfied that the parties had been living separately for over three and a half years, that there was an irretrievable breakdown of the marriage, and that the settlement had been arrived at voluntarily, without any coercion, duress, or collusion. On these findings, the court dissolved the marriage under Article 142 of the Constitution and directed the Registry to draw a decree accordingly.
Procedural Steps: From Transfer Petition to Decree
For the benefit of practitioners and litigants, the procedural sequence in this case may be summarised as follows:
- Filing of Transfer Petition under Section 25, CPC before the Supreme Court, seeking transfer of the contested divorce petition.
- Supreme Court referred the matter to the Supreme Court Mediation Centre pursuant to its order dated 20.03.2025.
- Multiple mediation sessions conducted between April and May 2025, resulting in a signed Settlement Agreement dated 19.05.2025.
- Settlement Agreement forwarded to the Registry of the Supreme Court by the Mediation Centre for placement before the Bench.
- The Bench, satisfied with the settlement and payment of full consideration, allowed the Application under Article 142 read with Section 13B, HMA.
- Order dated 29.10.2025 passed dissolving the marriage. All civil and criminal proceedings referred to in the Settlement Agreement stood terminated.
- Decree drawn by the Registry and sealed, formally bringing the matrimonial relationship and all ancillary litigation to an end.
Significance for the Broader Legal Landscape
This order is significant for several interconnected reasons. First, it demonstrates that the Supreme Court is willing to use its extraordinary powers under Article 142 as a tool of practical justice — not merely a theoretical reserve. The court exercised this power on the basis of facts on record: prolonged separation, irretrievable breakdown, and a voluntary settlement with full financial compliance.
Second, the order validates the Supreme Court Mediation Centre as an effective institution for resolving even the most heavily contested matrimonial disputes.
The case had spawned at least twelve concurrent legal proceedings across multiple fora in two states. The mediation process compressed this complexity into a single, comprehensive agreement — a result that ordinary adversarial litigation would have taken years, if not decades, to achieve.
Third, the inclusion of non-contact, non-defamation, and RTI-bar clauses in the Settlement Agreement reflects a mature, holistic approach to dispute resolution — one that goes beyond the immediate legal controversy to address the real-world dynamics between the families. This kind of forward-looking settlement design is increasingly being encouraged by courts.
Fourth, the case illustrates the cascading effect of unresolved matrimonial disputes: what began as a marriage breakdown led to an ecosystem of twelve inter-linked proceedings involving not just the spouses but their parents, siblings, and in-laws. The settlement’s explicit coverage of all known and unknown pending proceedings provides a measure of finality that a conventional decree alone cannot.
Frequently Asked Questions
Q1. What is Article 142 of the Constitution, and why is it used in divorce cases?
Article 142 empowers the Supreme Court to pass any decree or order necessary to do “complete justice” in any matter before it. In matrimonial cases, the Supreme Court has used this power to dissolve marriages even when statutory requirements — such as the six-month cooling-off period under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act — have not been fulfilled.
The power is invoked where the court is satisfied of genuine mutual consent and irretrievable breakdown, and it produces a final, binding decree.
Q2. What is a Transfer Petition and when can it be filed?
A Transfer Petition under Section 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, may be filed before the Supreme Court seeking transfer of a civil case from one High Court or subordinate court to another High Court or court. In matrimonial matters, a wife may seek transfer of proceedings initiated by the husband in a distant or inconvenient court to a court closer to her place of residence. The Supreme Court entertains such petitions where there are genuine concerns of convenience or justice.
Q3. What is the difference between the ordinary Section 13B process and an Article 142 divorce?
Under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, divorce by mutual consent requires two motions before the Family Court, with a mandatory six-month gap between the first and second motions (which the court may waive in certain circumstances).
Article 142 jurisdiction, exercised only by the Supreme Court, allows the divorce to be granted in a single proceeding once the court is satisfied of irretrievable breakdown and genuine mutual consent — bypassing the two-stage process and producing an immediate final decree.
Q4. Can the Supreme Court dissolve a marriage even if parties did not complete the two-motion process under Section 13B?
Yes. Where a matter is before the Supreme Court — whether by way of Transfer Petition, Special Leave Petition, or otherwise — and the parties have reached a genuine settlement, the court can invoke Article 142 to dissolve the marriage without requiring completion of the Section 13B procedure before a Family Court.
The court examines whether the consent is free and voluntary, whether there is irretrievable breakdown, and whether all ancillary issues (like alimony and stridhan) have been addressed.
Q5. What is the Supreme Court Mediation Centre and how does referral work?
The Supreme Court Mediation Centre functions under the aegis of the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee. When a matter is pending before the Supreme Court and the court considers mediation appropriate, it may refer the parties to the Centre.
A trained advocate-mediator is appointed, and sessions are held between the parties and their counsel. Any settlement reached is reduced to writing, signed by all parties and the mediator, and forwarded to the Registry for placement before the bench. The bench then considers whether to adopt the settlement as the basis for its order.
Q6. What happens to all the linked criminal and civil cases once a Supreme Court settlement order is passed?
The Supreme Court’s order in such cases typically provides that all proceedings between the parties — civil and criminal — referred to in the Settlement Agreement stand terminated.
Parties and their family members are also required to withdraw pending cases or give affidavits of no objection. A well-drafted settlement will also include a clause deeming it applicable to any undiscovered proceedings not known to the parties at the time of signing, providing comprehensive finality.
Q7. What is stridhan and how is it typically addressed in such settlements?
Stridhan refers to the property and assets that belong exclusively to a wife — typically gifts received at the time of marriage and thereafter from parents, in-laws, and relatives.
It is distinct from maintenance or alimony. In matrimonial settlements, stridhan claims are often clubbed with permanent alimony and maintenance claims into a consolidated lump-sum payment.
The settlement deed typically records that this payment constitutes “full and final settlement of all her claims towards permanent alimony, stridhan, maintenance (past, present, future) and any other claim whatsoever.”
Q8. Is a non-contact clause in a settlement agreement legally enforceable?
A non-contact clause incorporated in a court-sanctioned settlement agreement — especially one adopted by the Supreme Court in an Article 142 order — carries significant legal weight.
Violation of such a clause could expose the defaulting party to contempt of court proceedings, in addition to any civil or criminal remedy available for harassment or defamation under applicable laws.
While enforcement in individual cases may require further proceedings, the existence of such a clause provides a strong legal deterrent and a basis for urgent relief.
Q9. Can parties who have filed cases against each other’s family members also include those cases in a matrimonial settlement?
Yes. A comprehensive matrimonial settlement routinely covers not just the direct proceedings between the spouses, but also all collateral litigation involving family members on both sides.
The parties and their family members sign the settlement agreement, and all of them commit to withdrawing their respective proceedings. Courts have consistently encouraged such comprehensive resolutions as they provide genuine and lasting peace rather than mere technical legal closure.
Q10. What is the legal effect of the Decree of Dissolution drawn by the Registry?
The Decree drawn by the Registry of the Supreme Court pursuant to an Article 142 order is a formal judicial decree dissolving the marriage. It has the same legal force as any other decree of a competent court and is recognised for all legal purposes — including remarriage, succession, and changes in marital status records. The decree is sealed by the court and constitutes conclusive proof of dissolution of the marriage.
Q11. How long does the Article 142 process typically take once a matter is referred to mediation?
Timelines vary considerably depending on the complexity of the dispute and the parties’ willingness to negotiate. In the case analysed above, five mediation sessions spread over approximately six weeks led to a signed agreement.
The court hearing at which the Article 142 order was passed occurred approximately five months after the settlement was signed. Overall, from referral to mediation to the final decree, parties can expect a process spanning several months — which is dramatically faster than contested litigation, which can run for years across multiple fora.
Q12. Do both parties need to physically appear before the Supreme Court for an Article 142 divorce?
Not necessarily. In practice, the parties appear through their counsel in the Supreme Court proceedings, while their physical appearance at the Mediation Centre is required for the mediation sessions and the signing of the Settlement Agreement.
The Settlement Agreement itself records the presence of the parties in person at the mediation centre. However, specific requirements may vary based on the directions of the court in each case, and legal advice should be sought for individual circumstances.
