Amicable Settlement and Divorce Under Article 142

This Supreme Court judgement provides a significant example of how matrimonial disputes can be resolved through mediation, even when multiple legal proceedings are involved. Here’s a comprehensive analysis of the case for educational and informational purposes:

Case Overview: Jyotika Bhalla vs. Aman Mishra

Background Facts

• Parties: Jyotika Bhalla (Petitioner-Wife) vs. Aman Mishra (Respondent-Husband)

• Marriage: Solemnized on July 15, 2021, under Hindu rites

• Separation: Parties lived together only until December 2021 (approximately 5 months)

• No Children: No issues from the wedlock

Legal Proceedings Before Settlement

The parties had initiated numerous legal actions against each other, including:

• Divorce petitions under Hindu Marriage Act

• Cases under Domestic Violence Act, 2005

• Criminal cases under IPC Sections 498A/406/34 (cruelty, criminal breach of trust)

• Maintenance petitions under Section 125 CrPC

• Multiple FIRs and counter-complaints involving family members

Mediation Process

Through several mediation sessions held between April and May 2025, both parties reached a comprehensive settlement agreement on ___May 2025. The key terms included:

Permanent Alimony:

The husband agreed to pay ₹_________ to the wife as full and final settlement for all claims, including maintenance, alimony, and Stridhan.

Divorce by Mutual Consent:

Both parties jointly applied under Article 142 of the Constitution, seeking dissolution of marriage by invoking the Supreme Court’s inherent power to do complete justice.

Withdrawal of Pending Cases:

Each party agreed to withdraw all pending civil and criminal cases filed against the other and their respective family members.

Mutual Non-Interference Clause:

The agreement prohibited both sides from contacting or defaming each other on social media or through other means.

Finality of Settlement:

The parties confirmed that the settlement was voluntary, without coercion or pressure, and that they would not initiate any future litigation concerning their matrimonial disputes.

Key Settlement Terms

1. Financial Settlement:

   • Husband to pay ₹15,00,000 to wife

   • Covers full and final settlement of all claims including permanent alimony, stridhan, maintenance (past, present, future)

   • Payment to be made within 90 days (already paid as per court record)

2. Mutual Divorce:

   • Parties agreed to seek divorce under Article 142 of Constitution

   • Based on irretrievable breakdown of marriage (separated since December 2021)

3. Withdrawal of Cases:

   • All 12 pending cases to be withdrawn by both parties

   • Includes civil and criminal proceedings against each other and family members

4. Future Conduct:

   • No contact through any means including social media

   • No defamation or reputation damage

   • No interference in each other’s lives

   • No RTI applications regarding each other

Supreme Court’s Final Order

The Court exercised its extraordinary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to:

• Dissolve the marriage by mutual consent

• Terminate all pending civil and criminal proceedings

• Make the settlement terms binding on both parties

• Direct the Registry to draw a decree accordingly

Legal Significance

Article 142 of Constitution

This case demonstrates the expansive powers of the Supreme Court under Article 142 to “do complete justice” between parties, even bypassing procedural requirements of the Hindu Marriage Act.

Mediation as Effective Dispute Resolution

The successful mediation highlights:

• Cost-effective alternative to prolonged litigation

• Preserves relationships between parties

• Comprehensive resolution of interconnected disputes

• Voluntary settlement without coercion

Supreme Court’s Observations and Decision

After reviewing the settlement, the Supreme Court:

• Accepted the Settlement Agreement dated ____05.2025.

• Recorded that the agreed payment of ₹15,00,000 had already been made.

• Dissolved the marriage under Article 142 of the Constitution.

• Terminated all related civil and criminal proceedings between the parties.

• Directed the Registry to draw a decree accordingly.

This marks another instance where the Supreme Court exercised its plenary powers under Article 142 to dissolve a marriage even though statutory cooling-off or procedural stages were pending under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

Legal Significance of Article 142

Article 142 empowers the Supreme Court to pass any decree or order necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it.
In matrimonial cases, this provision allows the Court to:

• Grant divorce even if statutory waiting periods under Section 13B(2) HMA have not been met, if it is evident that the marriage has irretrievably broken down.

• Recognize settlements reached through mediation to prevent prolonged litigation.

Educational Insight

This case highlights:

• The importance of mediation in resolving sensitive family disputes.

• How the Supreme Court’s constitutional powers serve as a safeguard for achieving fair, final, and humane resolutions.

• That mutual consent divorce under judicial supervision ensures both parties’ rights and dignity are preserved.

Comprehensive Settlement Approach

The settlement addressed not just the main divorce petition but all interconnected legal battles, providing complete closure to the matrimonial dispute.

This judgement serves as an important precedent for using mediation and the Supreme Court’s constitutional powers to achieve complete resolution of complex matrimonial disputes involving multiple legal proceedings.

Conclusion

The judgment in Jyotika Bhalla vs. Aman Mishra underscores the judiciary’s evolving approach toward promoting peaceful settlement of matrimonial conflicts.

It demonstrates that mediation, coupled with the Supreme Court’s intervention under Article 142, can effectively end prolonged litigation, bringing closure to both parties while upholding the spirit of justice and compassion.

Note: This analysis is for educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.