2025 INSC 254 1

NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). OF 2025

(Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No(s). 4297 of 2023)

VISHAL SHAH …….APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

MONALISHA GUPTA & ORS. ….RESPONDENT(S)

J U D G M E N T

Mehta, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The instant appeal is directed against the

judgment and order dated 25

th January, 2023, passed

by the High Court of Calcutta in Criminal Revision being

CRR No. 135 of 2023, whereby the High Court

dismissed the said Criminal Revision filed by the

2

CRL. APPEAL@ SLP(CRL.) NO(S). 4297 OF 2023.

authorized representative of the appellant

1, i.e., his

sister, and affirmed the order dated 15

th September,

2022, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate,

Howrah

2, in Miscellaneous Case No. 440 of 2022 arising

out of Criminal Case No. 446C of 2020. Learned trial

Court vide order dated 15

th September, 2022, had

directed the competent authorities to start the

extradition process against the appellant.

3. The facts in a nutshell are that the marriage

between the appellant and respondent was solemnized

on 19

th February, 2018, as per Hindu rites and

ceremonies. In March, 2018, the couple moved to the

United States of America (‘USA’), where the appellant

has been working as a Software Engineer since 2014.

4. The appellant alleges that, while residing in the

USA, he was subjected to continuous domestic abuse at

the hands of the respondent-wife

3 and endured the

same. On 23

rd March, 2018, he reported an incident of

abuse to the local police, claiming protection and

1

The appellant is the husband of the respondent. For short, ‘appellant’.

2

Hereinafter, being referred to as ‘trial Court’.

3

For short, ‘respondent’.

3

CRL. APPEAL@ SLP(CRL.) NO(S). 4297 OF 2023.

displaying visible injuries on his face. Although the

appellant clarified that he did not wish to press charges,

he requested the police to issue a warning to his wife.

Despite this intervention, the abuse persisted. On 2

nd

April 2018, the respondent allegedly became enraged

and scratched the appellant's face, causing significant

injuries. Unable to face the situation, the appellant

called the police again, leading to the respondent being

charged with second-degree assault.

5. On account of the grave differences, the

relationship between the appellant and the respondent

became strained, leading to estrangement after only 80

days of matrimony. Accordingly, the couple returned to

India. When it was time to return to the USA, th e

respondent refused to accompany the appellant, who

left alone for the USA on 19

th May, 2018. The couple has

not begotten a child from the wedlock. Shortly, after the

appellant’s return to the USA, the respondent initiated

multiple legal proceedings against the appellant and his

family members in various courts/fora across the

country. The details of these cases, along with the

respective dates of filing, are as follows:

4

CRL. APPEAL@ SLP(CRL.) NO(S). 4297 OF 2023.

“1) In Muzaffarpur, Bihar Courts: -

a. Criminal case No. 852 of 2018 under Sections

498A, 307, 506, 406, 323, 324 IPC

4

and Sections 3 &

4 DP Act

5

before Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate,

Muzaffarpur, Bihar against the appellant, Gayatri

Shah(mother-in-law of the respondent), Bhavna

Chatterjee(sister-in-law of the respondent) & Sourav

Chatterjee(husband of the sister -in-law of the

respondent).

[Date of filing: 14th June, 2018]

b. Complaint Case No. 1009 of 2018 under Section 12

of the DV Act

6

before Additional Chief Judicial

Magistrate 1st, West Muzaffarpur, Bihar, against the

appellant, Gayatri Shah, Bhavna Chatterjee & Sourav

Chatterjee.

[Date of filing: 5th July, 2018]

c. Matrimonial Suit No. 280 of 2018 under Section 9

HMA

7

, before the Family Court, Muzaffarpur, Bihar,

seeking Restitution of Conjugal Rights against the

appellant.

[Date of filing: 5th July, 2018]

d. Maintenance Case No. 229 of 2018 under Section

125 CrPC

8

before the Family Court, Muzaffarpur,

Bihar for Maintenance against the appellant.

[Date of filing: 5th July, 2018]

4

The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short ‘IPC’).

5

The Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (in short ‘DP Act’).

6

The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (in short ‘DV

Act’).

7

The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (in short ‘HMA’).

8

The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short ‘CrPC’.

5

CRL. APPEAL@ SLP(CRL.) NO(S). 4297 OF 2023.

e. Complaint case No. 444 of 2020 under Sections

405, 406, 407, 420, 379, 499, 500, 324 and 506 IPC

before Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,

Muzaffarpur, Bihar against the appellant, Gayatri

Shah, Bhavna Chatterjee, Sourav Chatterjee, Vijayeta

Soni, Dilip Soni & Rajkumari Soni.

[Date of filing: 15th May, 2020]

f. Complaint Case No. 698 of 2021 under Sections 31

& 32 of DV Act before Additional Chief Judicial

Magistrate, 2nd Court, Muzaffarpur, Bihar against

Gayatri Shah, Bhavna Chatterjee, and Sourav

Chatterjee.

[Date of filing: 14th July, 2021]

g. Complaint Case No. 699 of 2021 under Sections 31

& 32 of the DV Act before Additional Chief Judicial

Magistrate, 2nd Court, Muzaffarpur, Bihar against

the appellant.

[Date of filing: 14th July, 2021]

2) In Howrah, West Bengal: -

a. Complaint case No. 79 of 2021 under Section 379

IPC before Ld. I Judicial Magistrate, Howrah, West

Bengal, against Mrs. Gayatri Shah, Bhavna

Chatterjee, and the appellant.

[Date of filing: 10th March, 2021]

b. Police case No. 72 of 2021 under Sections 186, 188,

and 332 IPC [Arising out of a police complaint made

by the respondent Bhavna Chatterjee, i.e., the

married sister of the appellant]

[Date of filing: 4th March, 2021]

6

CRL. APPEAL@ SLP(CRL.) NO(S). 4297 OF 2023.

c. Complaint Case No. 440 of 2022, filed under

Sections 26, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, and 12 of the DV Act,

before Ld. I Judicial Magistrate, Howrah, West

Bengal, against the appellant, Gayatri Shah, Bhavna

Chatterjee, Sourav Chatterjee, Sudipa Chatterjee

(mother-in-law of the Bhavna Chatterjee), Dilip Soni

(husband of the sister-in-law of the respondent),

Vijayeta Soni (sister-in-law of the respondent).

[Date of filing: 11th July, 2022]”

6. In view of the aforesaid cases registered against

the appellant, his passport was impounded by the

concerned authorities on 3

rd October, 2018. Between

2018 and 2020, the respondent resided in the same

house with her mother-in-law, i.e., the appellant’s

mother. As per the appellant, during this period, the

respondent had subjected his mother to severe physical

and mental torture, ultimately forcing her to leave the

house and seek shelter at her daughter's residence on

14

th September, 2020. Consequently, a Complaint Case

No. 446C of 2020 was filed by the mother of the

appellant against the respondent for the offences

punishable under Sections 323, 341, 342, 379, 403,

504, 506, and 120B IPC.

7

CRL. APPEAL@ SLP(CRL.) NO(S). 4297 OF 2023.

7. As a counterblast, the respondent also filed an

application under Section 26 of the DV Act against the

appellant, his mother, and five other close relatives,

which came to be registered as Miscellaneous Case No.

440 of 2022 in Complaint Case No. 446C of 2020. The

application filed by the respondent was proceeded with,

and vide order dated 11

th August 2022, the appellant

was directed to personally appear before the Court on

the scheduled date, i.e., 15

th September 2022. However,

when the appellant failed to appear before the trial court

on the notified date, the competent authorities were

instructed to initiate the extradition process against

him.

8. Being aggrieved by the direction to commence the

extradition process, the appellant, through his

authorized representative i.e., his sister, filed Criminal

Revision being CRR No. 135 of 2023 before the High

Court of Calcutta, which came to be dismissed vide the

judgment and order dated 25

th January, 2023, which is

impugned in this appeal by special leave.

8

CRL. APPEAL@ SLP(CRL.) NO(S). 4297 OF 2023.

9. During the pendency of the instant appeal, the

appellant has filed an Interlocutory Application

9 under

Article 142 of the Constitution of India, seeking

dissolution of marriage on the ground of irretrievable

breakdown.

10. Learned senior counsel representing the

appellant, urged that the appellant and the respondent

cohabited together only for a short duration of 80 days

after their marriage and that too in the USA. Thereafter,

there has been no spousal interaction whatsoever

between the parties so as to justify the lodging of

numerous cases filed by the respondent against the

appellant and the in-laws in the courts of different

jurisdictions. He contended that the respondent has

launched a vendetta with evil intention to harass and

humiliate the appellant and his family members, which

is manifested from the multiple cases filed by her in

different fora with almost identical allegations.

11. Learned senior counsel further submitted that the

appellant's old and ailing mother was thrown out of her

9

I.A. No. 35450 of 2024.

9

CRL. APPEAL@ SLP(CRL.) NO(S). 4297 OF 2023.

own house by the respondent. He urged that the cases

instituted (supra) by the respondent against the

appellant and his family members are a clear reflection

of her vindictive nature and are nothing short of a gross

abuse of the process of law. Learned counsel urged that

the appellant gave a generous proposal of permanent

alimony to the respondent for an amicable settlement of

all the disputes, but since she has the propensity to

continue the harassment and humiliation of the

appellant and his family members, the respondent has

bluntly repelled this genuine offer of settlement made

by the appellant. She has also countered all efforts to

settle the disputes despite multiple mediation efforts.

On these grounds, learned senior counsel

representing the appellant urged that this is a fit case

wherein this Court should feel persuaded to step in to

end the plight of the appellant and his family members

by exercising the powers conferred by Article 142 of the

Constitution of India. He prayed that while quashing

the proceedings of the various cases filed by the

respondent against the appellant and his family

10

CRL. APPEAL@ SLP(CRL.) NO(S). 4297 OF 2023.

members, a direction deserves to be issued dissolving

the marriage between the appellant and the respondent.

12. Learned counsel representing the respondent did

not dispute the fact that the spouses resided together

only for a short period of less than three months after

their marriage in the year 2018. However, he

vehemently and fervently opposed the submissions

advanced by the appellant's counsel, urging that the

respondent was maltreated and was unlawfully turned

out of the matrimonial home on account of the greed of

the appellant and his family members for dowry.

13. Learned counsel contended that none of the cases

filed by the respondent are barred by limitation, nor can

it be said that the allegations levelled by the respondent

against the appellant and his family members do not

disclose a valid cause of action. He submitted that the

appellant was granted conditional permission to travel

abroad by the family court on 9

th May, 2022. However,

instead of complying with the family court's directions,

the appellant failed to appear for subsequent hearings

and sent derogatory and threatening e-mails to the

respondent. Under these circumstances, the Magistrate

11

CRL. APPEAL@ SLP(CRL.) NO(S). 4297 OF 2023.

was fully justified in directing the initiation of

extradition proceedings against the appellant.

Learned counsel thus concluded his submissions,

stating that it is not a fit case wherein this court should

feel inclined to grant any relief to the appellant by

exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction under Articles

136 and 142 of the Constitution of India.

14. We have heard the learned counsels appearing for

the parties and have given our thoughtful consideration

to the submissions advanced and perused the

pleadings.

15. Taking note of the facts and circumstances

narrated above, the first question that arises for

consideration is whether the initiation of the extradition

process against the appellant vide order dated 15

th

September 2022 is justified in the eyes of the law.

16. It is undisputed that the appellant returned to the

USA on 19

th May, 2018, and his passport was

impounded under Section 10 of the Passport Act, 1967,

by the concerned authorities on 3

rd October, 2018

because of numerous matrimonial and other cases filed

against him by the respondent.

12

CRL. APPEAL@ SLP(CRL.) NO(S). 4297 OF 2023.

17. The respondent and her mother-in-law had been

residing under the same roof since 2018. The mother-

in-law had alleged that she was brutally assaulted, and

her modesty was outraged by the respondent,

compelling her to file Complaint Case No. 446C of 2020

before the Ld. JMFC, Howrah, under Sections 323, 341,

342, 379, 403, 504, 506, and 120B IPC against the

respondent. It is further claimed that, despite her old

age, she was forced to leave her own home to ensure the

safety of her property and dignity from the vicious

design of the respondent.

18. In the afore-mentioned complaint case, an

application

10 was filed by the respondent under Section

26 of the DV Act against the appellant, her mother-in-

law, and their five other relatives. A notice was issued

to the appellant vide order dated 21

st July 2022.

Subsequently, on 11

th August 2022, the learned JMFC

passed an interim order in favour of the respondent,

prohibiting her eviction from the matrimonial home and

directing the personal appearance of the appellant

10

Miscellaneous Case No. 440/2022.

13

CRL. APPEAL@ SLP(CRL.) NO(S). 4297 OF 2023.

(respondent therein) and other respondents on the next

hearing date. However, when the matter was listed

again, the Court noticed that the appellant had not

returned to India, and the concerned authorities were

directed to initiate the extradition process against him.

We may observe that as the proceedings under the DV

Act are quasi-criminal in nature, thus, there cannot be

any justification to require the personal presence of the

appellant in these proceedings. Thus, the learned

Magistrate grossly erred while directing the appellant to

remain personally present in the Court.

19. At this juncture, it is pertinent to note that while

passing the order dated 15

th September 2022, the

learned JMFC took into account the fact that the

passport of the appellant was impounded by the

concerned authorities on 3

rd October, 2018 and when

the appellant lay challenge to this act of impounding

before the High Court of Calcutta by filing a Writ

Petition being WPA No. 4743 of 2020, the same was also

dismissed by the High Court vide judgment and order

dated 15

th January, 2021, while affirming the

revocation and barring the appellant herein from filing

14

CRL. APPEAL@ SLP(CRL.) NO(S). 4297 OF 2023.

any appeal under Section 11 of the Passport Act, 1967.

The relevant observations from the order passed by the

JMFC dated 15

th September, 2022 are as follows:-

“Finally, the Govt of India, on its motion,

revoked/impounded his passport (J1863634) on

03.10.2018 u/s 10 of the Passport Act, 1967, and

this, the letter no. 17(1249)18/PSK/RPO/KOL

(CALA07137810) dr. 04.10.2018 suggests. Against

such revocation, he had approached the Hon'ble

Calcutta High Court through WPA 4743 of 2020.

The order dated 15.01.2021 of that action

suggests that the Hon'ble High Court not merely

dismissed his writ petition but has debarred him

from any appeal u/s 11 of the said Act of 1967

while affirming the revocation.”

(emphasis supplied)

20. It is apparent that the appellant’s inability to travel

to India and appear in Miscellaneous Case No. 440 of

2022, filed by the respondent under Section 26 of the

DV Act, stemmed from the impoundment of his

passport, a circumstance beyond his control.

Consequently, the order of the learned JMFC directing

the initiation of extradition proceedings against the

appellant as a consequence of his non-appearance,

despite being aware of the fact of impounding of the

passport of the appellant, is untenable and

unsustainable in the eyes of the law. Otherwise also, as

15

CRL. APPEAL@ SLP(CRL.) NO(S). 4297 OF 2023.

noted above, there is no requirement for the personal

presence of any party in the proceedings under the DV

Act, because they are quasi-criminal in nature and do

not entail any penal consequences except when there is

a breach of a protection order, which is the only offence

provided under Section 31 of the DV Act.

21. The appellant challenged the order dated 15

th

September, 2022, passed by the learned JMFC by filing

Criminal Revision being CRR No. 135 of 2023 before the

High Court of Calcutta. However, the High Court vide a

non-speaking order dated 25

th January, 2023,

dismissed the revision petition, stating that no grounds

for interference were made out. This Court is of the

considered opinion that the High Court could have

examined the record of the case, particularly the

reasons for the appellant's failure to appear due to

circumstances beyond his control, and hence, a

reasoned decision addressing the merits of the matter

was expected in these circumstances.

22. In the wake of the above discussion, the order

dated 15

th September, 2022, passed by the trial Court,

and the order dated 25

th January, 2023, passed by the

16

CRL. APPEAL@ SLP(CRL.) NO(S). 4297 OF 2023.

High Court of Calcutta, are liable to be quashed and set

aside.

23. The next question that arises for our consideration

is whether there is an irretrievable breakdown of the

marriage of the appellant and the respondent requiring

this Court to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction

under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to do

complete justice.

24. The issue regarding the invocation of the

extraordinary powers of this Court under Article 142(1)

of the Constitution of India in cases of marital disputes

is no longer res-integra and has been settled by the

Constitution Bench of this Court in Shilpa Sailesh v.

Varun Sreenivasan

11. The Court held that in the

exercise of the power under Article 142(1) of the

Constitution of India, this Court has discretion to

dissolve the marriage on the ground of its irretrievable

breakdown. The relevant observations are extracted

below: -

“42. This question is also answered in (sic) affirmative,

inter alia, holding that this Court, in the exercise of

power under Article 142(1) of the Constitution of

11

2023 SCC OnLine SC 544.

17

CRL. APPEAL@ SLP(CRL.) NO(S). 4297 OF 2023.

India, has the discretion to dissolve the marriage on

the ground of its irretrievable breakdown. This

discretionary power is to be exercised to do ‘complete

justice’ to the parties, wherein this Court is satisfied

that the facts established show that the marriage has

completely failed, and there is no possibility that the

parties will cohabit together, and continuation of the

formal legal relationship is unjustified. The Court, as

a court of equity, is required to also balance the

circumstances and the background in which the

party opposing the dissolution is placed.”

25. The Constitution Bench further laid down the

factors to be considered for such determination, which

were also reiterated in the case of Kiran Jyot Maini v.

Anish Pramod Patel

12. This Court, in both these

judgments, opined that the factors to be examined inter

alia include the period of cohabitation between the

parties after marriage; the last cohabitation among the

parties; the period of separation; the nature and the

gravity of allegations made by the parties against each

other and their family members; the orders passed in

the legal proceedings from time to time, cumulative

impact on the personal relationship; whether, and how

many attempts were made to settle the disputes by

12

2024 SCC OnLine SC 1724.

18

CRL. APPEAL@ SLP(CRL.) NO(S). 4297 OF 2023.

intervention of the court or through mediation, and

such other similar factors.

26. On the issue as to grant of divorce on the ground

of irretrievable breakdown of marriage in the exercise of

jurisdiction under Article 142(1) of the Constitution of

India, this Court, in a very recent judgment of Rinku

Baheti v Sandesh Sharda

13, held that the factual

analysis has to be undertaken in each case to determine

as to what constitutes an ‘irretrievable breakdown’

while keeping in mind the non-exhaustive factors laid

down in Shilpa Sailesh (supra). The relevant

observations are as follows:-

“8.11 But what constitutes an irretrievable

breakdown has to be determined in each case by

undertaking a factual analysis of the case and using

judicial discretion in light of several non-exhaustive

factors laid down by this Court in the judgment of

Shilpa Sailesh. This Court has to reach the

conclusion that the marriage has “completely failed”

of and there is no possibility of the parties cohabiting

together as husband and wife, and that the

continuation of the formal legal relationship of

marriage is unjustified lacking in substance and

content.”

13

2024 SCC OnLine SC 3801.

19

CRL. APPEAL@ SLP(CRL.) NO(S). 4297 OF 2023.

27. Considering the above principles, we need to

consider the factual matrix in the instant case before

arriving at a decision on the application filed by the

appellant under Article 142 of the Constitution of India.

28. The marriage between the appellant-husband and

the respondent-wife was solemnized on 19

th February,

2018. It is not in dispute that the spouses resided

together for a short duration of 80 days in the USA and

have been living separately since May, 2018. The

respondent-wife is residing in Tripura, India, and on the

other hand, the appellant-husband has been primarily

living in the USA, for the last 5 years.

29. It is also to be noted that multiple cases have been

filed by the respondent against the appellant and his

family members, as recorded in Para 5 of this judgment.

The appellant and his family members have also filed

numerous cases against the respondent. The cases filed

against the respondent and her relatives are as follows:-

a. Misc. Case No. 54/2020 (Gayatri Shah v.

Monalisa Gupta and others, which was

dismissed by learned District Judge,

Muzaffarpur.

20

CRL. APPEAL@ SLP(CRL.) NO(S). 4297 OF 2023.

b. Misc. Case No. 20/2020 (Gayatri Shah v.

Monalisa Gupta) is pending in the Court of

Learned ACIM 2nd, Muzaffarpur.

c. Cr. Complaint Case No. 446C/2020

(Gayatri Shah v. Monalisa Gupta and others)

pending in the Court of Learned JMFC,

Howrah, West Bengal.

d. Title Suit Case No. 946/2020 (Bhavna

Shah v. Monalisa Gupta).

e. Eviction Suit No. 1156/2020 (Bhavna

Shah v. Monalisa Gupta).

f. Money Suit Case No. 342/2023 (Vishal

Shah v. Monalisa Gupta) is pending in the

court of learned Civil Judge, Junior Division,

Howrah, West Bengal.

g. Divorce Case No. C-13-FM-18-001269

and C-13-FM-18-001451 (Vishal Shah v.

Monalisa Gupta), which were dismissed by

the State of Maryland, USA.

h. Domestic Violence Case No.

D101FM18000130 (Vishal Shah v. Monalisa

Gupta), which is pending in County USA.

21

CRL. APPEAL@ SLP(CRL.) NO(S). 4297 OF 2023.

i. NGR Case No. 444/2020 (Bhavna Shah v.

Monalisa Gupta), closed by Serampore Court.

j. NGR Case No. 444/2020 (Gayatri Shah v.

Monalisa Gupta), closed by Serampore Court.

30. As can be observed from the above list, the parties

and their family members have indulged in multifarious

litigations against each other, even though the period of

the spousal relationship was very brief, and the discord

started way back in 2018. The respondent filed a

Complaint Case No. 1009 of 2018 under Section 498A

IPC against the appellant and his family members. In

addition to the said complaint, the respondent has

registered a Matrimonial Suit No. 280 of 2018 under

Section 9 HMA, seeking restitution of conjugal rights.

The respondent had also filed a Complaint Case No. 444

of 2020 under Sections 405, 406, 407, 420, 378, 499,

and 500 IPC against the appellant, her mother-in-law,

and five other family members. Apart from these cases,

the respondent filed two Complaint Cases bearing No.

698 of 2021(against the appellant's family members)

22

CRL. APPEAL@ SLP(CRL.) NO(S). 4297 OF 2023.

and No. 699 of 2021(against the appellant), under

Sections 31 and 32 of the DV Act.

31. The filing of the aforesaid cases by the

respondent-wife reflects her vindictive attitude towards

the appellant and his family members and

unambiguously reflects the bitterness that has seeped

into the marital relationship. The tumultuous state of

the marital relationship between the parties is quite

evident, irrespective of the fate of the criminal

complaints and the imputations made by the parties

against each other. The passport of the appellant was

also impounded by the concerned authorities, pursuant

to the pending cases filed by the respondent.

32. On the other hand, the appellant and his family

members have also filed various cases (Criminal

Complaint Case, Title Suit Case, Eviction Suit, Money

Suit, Domestic Violence Case, and Divorce Case)

against the respondent before various courts.

33. Further, Smt. Gayatri Shah (the old-aged mother

of the appellant) has alleged that she was brutally

assaulted, and her modesty was outraged by the

respondent and that she has been ousted from her own

23

CRL. APPEAL@ SLP(CRL.) NO(S). 4297 OF 2023.

house by the respondent on 14

th September, 2020.

Resultantly, she was constrained to file a Complaint

Case No. 446C of 2020 against the respondent under

Sections 323, 341, 342, 379, 403, 504, 506 and 120B

IPC. Thus, the old-aged mother-in-law has also been

entangled in the litigations spurted owing to the

matrimonial discord between the appellant and the

respondent, which also has an evident impact on the

mind of the appellant in how he perceives the acts of

the respondent and his relationship with her.

34. Thus, what emerges from the aforesaid facts is

that:-

(i) The marriage between the parties did not really

take off at all.

(ii) The parties cohabited with each other for a

very short duration of 80 days, and during this

period as well, there was neither any cordiality

nor any mutual love, affection, or respect for each

other.

(iii) No child has been born from the wedlock.

24

CRL. APPEAL@ SLP(CRL.) NO(S). 4297 OF 2023.

(iv) Since 2019, the appellant-husband has been

residing in the USA, and the respondent-wife has

been residing in India.

(v) The parties have filed numerous cases against

each other, reflecting the ongoing conflicts and

disputes, which have further deteriorated their

relationship and made any hope of reconciliation

virtually impossible.

(vi) Despite various mediation attempts, all efforts

to resolve the dispute between the parties have

been unsuccessful.

The aforesaid facts give us the impression that

there was hardly any cordiality or meaningful marital

relationship that flowed from the marriage between the

parties. It is evident that the relationship between the

parties appears to be strained from the beginning and

has further soured over the years.

35. Whatever may be the justification for the spouses

living separately, with so much time having passed by

any marital love or affection that may have developed

between the parties seems to have evanesced. This is a

classic case of irretrievable breakdown of marriage. The

25

CRL. APPEAL@ SLP(CRL.) NO(S). 4297 OF 2023.

admitted long-standing separation, nature of

differences, prolonged and multiple litigations pending

adjudication, and the unwillingness of the parties to

reconcile are evidence enough to establish beyond all

manner of doubt that the marriage between the parties

has broken down irretrievably and that there is no

scope whatsoever for marriage to survive. Thus, no

useful purpose, emotional or practical, would be served

by continuing the soured relationship. On the basis of

the above factual matrix, the present appears to be a

case of irretrievable breakdown of marriage.

36. Apart from the irreconcilable status of the

relationship between the parties, in the present case,

another factor that has weighed with this Court in

favour of the exercise of the power under Article 142(1)

of the Constitution of India is that there is no child born

from the wedlock and therefore, any direction to allow

the parties to part ways would only affect the parties

themselves and not any innocent child.

37. Thus, this is a fit case warranting the exercise of

the discretion conferred under Article 142(1) of the

Constitution of India to dissolve the marriage between

26

CRL. APPEAL@ SLP(CRL.) NO(S). 4297 OF 2023.

the parties on the grounds of irretrievable breakdown of

marriage.

38. We have to now consider the question of assessing

the alimony for the respondent upon the dissolution of

marriage between the parties. Learned senior counsel

for the appellant has fairly submitted that the appellant

is willing to pay a reasonable lump sum of money as

permanent alimony to the respondent in order to assist

her in starting her life afresh and to put an end to

multiple protracted litigations. The respondent

blatantly declined the said offer, stating that she was

not interested in the money of the appellant as her sole

intent was to have an opportunity to resume her marital

life.

39. Before going into the details of the financial

position of the parties, it is imperative that we highlight

the position of law with regard to the determination of

permanent alimony. This Court, in the cases of Rajnesh

v. Neha

14

, Kiran Jyot Maini (supra), and Parvin

Kumar Jain v. Anju Jain

15, provided a comprehensive

14

(2021) 2 SCC 324.

15

2024 SCC OnLine SC 3678.

27

CRL. APPEAL@ SLP(CRL.) NO(S). 4297 OF 2023.

criterion and a list of factors to be looked into while

deciding the question of permanent alimony, which are

as follows:-

i. Status of the parties, social and financial.

ii. Reasonable needs of the wife and the

dependent children.

iii. Parties’ individual qualifications and

employment statuses.

iv. Independent income or assets owned by the

party.

v. Standard of life enjoyed by the wife in the

matrimonial home.

vi. Any employment sacrifices made for family

responsibilities.

vii. Reasonable litigation costs for a non-working

wife.

viii. Financial capacity of the husband, his

income, maintenance obligations, and liabilities.

40. In the present case, it is a matter of record and an

admitted fact that the respondent is currently employed

as a Research Specialist at PwC in Kolkata, earning a

salary of Rs. 50,000 per month. In her reply affidavit,

28

CRL. APPEAL@ SLP(CRL.) NO(S). 4297 OF 2023.

the respondent averred that the appellant earned Rs. 8

lakh per month in 2018 and claimed that he would now

be earning more than Rs. 10 lakh per month. The

appellant, in his rejoinder affidavit, admitted that while

he was earning Rs. 8 lakh per month in 2018, however,

at present, he is unemployed and is facing challenges

in securing employment in India due to multiple cases

filed by the respondent.

41. Considering the material on record, the totality of

the circumstances, and the peculiar facts of this case,

a one-time settlement as alimony for the respondent

would be a fair arrangement. Taking into account the

standard of living enjoyed by the respondent during the

subsistence of the marriage, the prolonged period of

separation, and the financial status of both the parties,

an amount of Rs. 25 lakhs (Rupees twenty-five lakhs

only) appears to be just, fair and reasonable to be paid

by the appellant to the respondent towards settlement

of all pending claims and to cover the permanent

alimony. The appellant shall pay the amount provided

above towards permanent alimony to the respondent

within a period of two months from today.

29

CRL. APPEAL@ SLP(CRL.) NO(S). 4297 OF 2023.

42. Before we conclude our discussion, we must note

that the act of impounding the passport of the appellant

by the concerned authorities of the Government of India

was ex-facie illegal in the eyes of the law. In the present

case, the appellant’s passport was impounded on the

mere premise that the respondent has filed numerous

cases before the various courts in India.

43. The law regarding the impounding of a passport of

an individual has been settled by this Court in the case

of Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India and Anr.

16,

wherein it was held that the rules of natural justice

must be followed before impounding a passport under

Section 10(3) of the Passports Act, 1967. Justice

Bhagwati, speaking for the majority, held as follows: -

“40. …………. Now it is obvious that on a plain

natural construction of Section 10(3)(c), it is left to the

Passport Authority to determine whether it is

necessary to impound a passport in the interests of

the general public. But an order made by the

Passport Authority impounding a passport is

subject to judicial review on the ground that the

order is mala fide, or that the reasons for making

the order are extraneous, or they have no

relevance to the interests of the general public or

they cannot possibly support the making of the

order in the interests of the general public. It was

16

(1978) 1 SCC 248.

30

CRL. APPEAL@ SLP(CRL.) NO(S). 4297 OF 2023.

not disputed on behalf of the Union, and indeed, it

could not be in view of Section 10 sub-section (5) that,

save in certain exceptional cases, of which this was

admittedly not one, the Passport Authority is bound

to give reasons for making an order impounding a

passport……”

45. “……..We, however, wish to utter a word of

caution to the Passport Authority while exercising the

power of refusing or impounding, or cancelling a

passport. The Passport Authority would do well to

remember that it is a basic human right

recognised in Article 13 of the Universal

Declaration of Human Rights with which the

Passport Authority is interfering when it refuses

or impounds, or cancels a passport. It is a highly

valuable right which is a part of personal liberty,

an aspect of the spiritual dimension of man, and

it should not be lightly interfered with. Cases are

not unknown where people have not been allowed to

go abroad because of the views held, opinions

expressed, or political beliefs, or economic ideologies

entertained by them. It is hoped that such cases will

not recur under a Government constitut ionally

committed to uphold freedom and liberty but it is well

to remember, at all times, that eternal vigilance is the

price of liberty, for history shows that it is always

subtle and insidious encroachments made ostensibly

for a good cause that imperceptibly but surely corrode

the foundations of liberty.”

(emphasis supplied)

44. While concurring with the majority opinion, Chief

Justice M.H. Beg (as he then was) in his sole concurring

opinion was of the view that: -

31

CRL. APPEAL@ SLP(CRL.) NO(S). 4297 OF 2023.

“218. A bare look at the provisions of Section 10,

sub-section (3) of the Act will show that each of

the orders which could be passed under Section

10, sub-section (3)(a) to (h) requires a

“satisfaction” by the passport authority on

certain objective conditions which must exist in a

case before it passes an order to impound a

passport or a travel document. Impounding or

revocation are placed side by side on the same

footing in the provision. Section 11 of the Act

provides an appeal to the Central Government from

every order passed under Section 10, sub-section (3)

of the Act. Hence, Section 10, sub-section (5) makes

it obligatory upon the passport authority to “record in

writing a brief statement of the reasons for making

such order and furnish to the holder of the passport

or travel document on demand a copy of the same

unless in any case, the passport authority is of the

opinion that it will not be in the interests of the

sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of

India, friendly relations of India with any foreign

country or in the interests of the general public to

furnish such a copy.

220. There can be no doubt whatsoever that the

orders under Section 10(3) must be based upon some

material even if that material consists, in some cases,

of reasonable suspicion arising from certain credible

assertions made by reliable individuals. It may be

that, in an emergent situation, the impounding of a

passport may become necessary without even giving

an opportunity to be heard against such a step, which

could be reversed after an opportunity given to the

holder of the passport to show why the step w as

unnecessary, but, ordinarily, no passport could be

reasonably either impounded or revoked without

giving a prior opportunity to its holder to show cause

against the proposed action. The impounding as well

32

CRL. APPEAL@ SLP(CRL.) NO(S). 4297 OF 2023.

(sic) as revocation of a passport, seem to constitute

action in the nature of a punishment necessitated on

one of the grounds specified in the Act. Hence,

ordinarily, an opportunity to be heard in defence

after a show-cause notice should be given to the

holder of a passport even before impounding it.”

(emphasis supplied)

45. Further, this Court, in Rajesh Sharma v. State

of U.P.

17, while dealing with the question of arrest and

fair investigation in a case alleging the offence of cruelty

under Section 498A IPC, was of the view that in respect

of persons ordinarily residing out of India impounding

of passports or issuance of ‘Red Corner Notice’ should

not be a routine.

46. Applying the afore-mentioned legal principles to

the present case, we find that the act of impounding the

appellant’s passport under Section 10 of the Passport

Act, 1967, was carried out without granting the

appellant an opportunity to be heard. This clear

violation of the principles of natural justice renders the

act of impounding the passport ex-facie illegal.

Consequently, we hold that the concerned authorities

17

(2018) 10 SCC 472.

33

CRL. APPEAL@ SLP(CRL.) NO(S). 4297 OF 2023.

should release the appellant’s passport within a period

of one week from today.

47. Resultantly, we conclude as below: -

a. The judgments/orders dated 15

th September,

2022 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate,

Howrah and 25

th January, 2023 passed by the

High Court are quashed and set aside.

b. The application filed by the appellant -

husband, under Article 142(1) of the Constitution

of India, is allowed and the marriage between the

appellant and the respondent is dissolved on the

ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage.

The Registry to draw a decree accordingly.

c. Consequently, all the criminal cases/DV Act

complaints and civil cases pending between the

respondent and the appellant and his family

members shall stand closed.

d. The appellant shall deposit a sum of

Rs.25,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty-Five Lakhs only)

in the Registry of this Court as the amount of

permanent alimony payable to the respondent

within two months from today. This amount shall

34

CRL. APPEAL@ SLP(CRL.) NO(S). 4297 OF 2023.

be disbursed to the respondent within a period of

two weeks thereafter. An undertaking to that

effect shall be filed before this Court within two

weeks from today. We also make it clear that if

the respondent refuses to accept the aforesaid

amount and fails to draw the same from the

Registry within the aforesaid period, the same

shall be repaid to the appellant.

e. The passport of the appellant shall be released

by the authorities concerned within a period of

one week from today.

48. In view of the above, the appeal stands disposed

of.

49. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand

disposed of.

….……………………J.

(PANKAJ MITHAL)

...…………………….J.

(SANDEEP MEHTA)

NEW DELHI;

FEBRUARY 20, 2025.