TRISHA SINGH versus ANURAG KUMAR
[2024] 5 S.C.R. 567, Supreme Court of India, 2024
Outcome: Case Allowed (Granted)
Segment: Issues
[2024] 5 S.C.R. 567 : 2024 INSC 450
Trisha Singh  
v. 
Anurag Kumar
(Transfer Petition (Civil) No. 1008 of 2023 )
15 May 2024 
[B.R. Gavai and Sandeep Mehta, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Parties arrived at an amicable settlement for dissolution of marriage 
by mutual consent. However, the wife resiled from the settlement 
agreement. Exercise of powers under Article 142 of the Constitution 
of India to grant decree of divorce.
Headnotes†
Constitution of India – Article 142 – Exercise of powers under – 
Grant of decree of divorce – Present transfer petition was filed 
by wife seeking transfer of the petition filed by husband u/s.9 
of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Parties arrived at settlement 
before the Mediator for dissolution of marriage by mutual 
consent – Husband abided by the terms of settlement however, 
the wife resiled from the settlement agreement: 
Held: The petitioner-wife having taken advantage of the settlement 
executed before the Mediator managed to get the matrimonial 
case instituted by the respondent-husband withdrawn – She also 
accepted Rs.50 lakhs from the husband towards part payment 
of the permanent alimony and thereafter, tried to resile from the 
settlement without any justification – The conduct of the wife is 
clearly, recalcitrant inasmuch as she disregarded the terms and 
conditions agreed before the Mediator in the settlement proceedings 
undertaken pursuant to the directions of this Court – Because of 
her conduct, the husband was put to
grave disadvantage inasmuch 
as he withdrew the matrimonial case and also paid a significant 
proportion of the permanent alimony to the wife in terms of the 
settlement agreement – The matrimonial relations between the 
spouses have broken down irrevocably and there is no possibility 
of reconciliation and revival of the spousal relationship – Hence, 
looking at the conduct of the wife and the other attending facts and 
circumstances, decree of divorce granted in exercise the powers 
under Article 142 of the Constitution of India – The marriage between 
the petitioner and the respondent is dissolved. [Paras 7, 10]
568
[2024] 5 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
Case Law Cited
Ruchi Agarwal v. Amit Kumar Agrawal and Others (2005) 3 SCC 
299 – relied on. 
List of Acts
Constitution of India; Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
List of Keywords
Exercise of powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to 
grant decree of divorce; Transfer petition; Dissolution of marriage by 
mutual consent; Amicable settlement; Settlement before Mediator; 
Resiled from settlement; Matrimonial case withdrawn; Permanent 
alimony; Matrimonial relations; Spousal relationship; Irrevocable/
irretrievable break down; Marriage dissolved.
Case Arising From
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Transfer Petition (Civil) No. 1008 
of 2023
Petition Filed Under Section 9 of The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
Appearances for Parties
Dr. Arvind S. Avhad, Adv. for the Petitioner.
Paban K Sharma, Himanshu Shekhar, Pranab Kumar Nayak, Anchit 
Sripat, Arvind Kumar, Advs. for the Respondent.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Order
1.	
The instant transfer petition came to be preferred by the petitioner-
wife seeking transfer of the petition filed by the respondent-husband 
under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 being Matrimonial 
Case No. 2172/2022 titled as ‘Anurag Kumar S/o Ravindra Nath 
Sharma Vs. Trisha Singh’, pending before the Court of 7-Principal 
Judge, Family Court, Varanasi, U.P. to the Family Court at Pune, 
Maharashtra.
2.	
The transfer petition was dismissed for want of prosecution on 26th 
July, 2023.
Subsequently, vide order dated 21st August, 2023, the 
transfer petition was restored to its original number and on the request 
of learned counsel for the parties, the matter was forwarded to the
[2024] 5 S.C.R. 
569
Trisha Singh v. Anurag Kumar
Supreme Court Mediation Centre for exploring the possibility of an 
amicable settlement between the parties. Pursuant to the efforts 
made by the Mediator, the parties had arrived at a settlement which 
was signed by the petitioner-wife and the respondent-husband 
before Shrabani Chakrabarty, Advocate/Mediator, Supreme Court 
Mediation Centre on 26th February, 2024. The relevant terms and 
conditions of the settlement agreement which in entirety shall form 
a part of this order are reproduced below: -
“5. Both the parties hereto have arrived at an amicable 
settlement on the following terms and conditions for 
dissolution of marriage by mutual consent: -
A.	
That the respondent husband continued to pay 
certain expenses voluntary to the tune of Rs.20 
lakhs (Rupees twenty lakh only) from March 2020 
upto October 2023 for his child to the bank account 
of the petitioner-wife including the period the parties 
were not together. Mediation took place at great 
length between the parties and parties want to part 
away taking divorce. The respondent- husband has 
agreed to pay full and final alimony of Rs.1 Crore 
15 lakh (one crore and Fifteen lakhs only) to the 
petitioner-wife. The respondent husband has paid 
an amount of Rs.50 lakh to the petitioner wife on 
22.02.2024. The remaining alimony will be paid will 
be as under:
(i)	
Rs.50 Lakh (rupees fifty lakh) only shall 
be paid to the petitioner-wife on or before 
31.08.2024;
(ii)	
The remaining alimony of Rs. 15 lakh 
(rupees fifteen lakh) only will be paid on 
or before 31.12.2024.
(iii)	 The gold and jewelries belonging to the 
petitioner-wife kept in a locker at Bank 
of India of Varanasi shall be taken by the 
petitioner within 14th to 20th March 2024. 
Petitioner will also collect silver items 
given on marriage from the respondent- 
husband.”
570
[2024] 5 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
3.	
It is thus manifest that there was a clear undertaking by the parties 
before the Mediator that they shall part ways peacefully.
4.	
It is also clear that the respondent-husband had voluntarily paid a 
sum of Rs. 20 lakhs for the support of his child during the period 
from March, 2020 to October, 2023. The respondent-husband also 
paid a sum of Rs. 50 lakhs to the petitioner-wife in the terms of the 
settlement. The remaining amount of permanent alimony has been 
agreed to be paid as per the schedule indicated in the settlement 
deed. Out of this agreed amount, the respondent-husband has paid 
a sum of Rs. 50,00,000/- (fifty lacs) only to the petitioner-wife.
5.	
However, today when the matter was taken up, this Court was 
apprised that the petitioner-wife seems to have resiled from the 
settlement agreement.
6.	
Learned counsel for the petitioner-wife has affirmed that his client 
has stopped instructing him in the matter. Acting on the terms of 
the settlement, the respondent-husband has already withdrawn 
the matrimonial case on 23rd April, 2024 which fact is recorded in 
the order sheet of the Family Court placed on record with I.A. No. 
112620 of 2024 and thus he is abiding by the terms of settlement 
in letter and spirit.
7.	
It seems, the petitioner-wife having taken advantage of the settlement 
executed before the Mediator has managed to get the matrimonial 
case instituted by the respondent-husband withdrawn.
She has also 
accepted a sum of Rs.50 lakhs from the respondent-husband towards 
part payment of the permanent alimony and thereafter, she is trying 
to resile from the settlement without any justification. The conduct 
of the petitioner-wife is clearly, recalcitrant inasmuch as she has 
disregarded the terms and conditions agreed before the Mediator in 
the settlement proceedings which were undertaken pursuant to the 
directions of this Court. Not only this, because of her conduct, the 
respondent-husband has been put to grave disadvantage inasmuch 
as he has withdrawn the matrimonial case and has also paid a 
significant proportion of the permanent alimony to the petitioner-wife 
in terms of the settlement agreement.
8.	
Learned counsel for the respondent-husband on instructions states 
that his client undertakes to abide by the remaining terms and 
conditions of the settlement agreement in letter and spirit and shall 
make due payments on the schedule dates if the marriage is dissolved.
[2024] 5 S.C.R. 
571
Trisha Singh v. Anurag Kumar
9.	
A similar situation was examined by this Court in the case of Ruchi 
Agarwal v. Amit Kumar Agrawal and Others1, the relevant excerpts 
whereof read as follows: -
“4. It is the above order of the High Court that is under 
challenge before us in this appeal. During the pendency 
of the proceedings before the courts below and in this 
Court, certain developments have taken place which 
have a material bearing on the merits of this appeal. 
The complaint which the appellant herein filed is dated 
10-4-2002. Thereafter, a divorce petition was filed by 
the appellant wife before the Family Court at Nainital. 
In the said divorce petition a compromise was arrived at 
between the parties in which it was stated that the first 
respondent husband was willing for a consent divorce 
and that the appellant wife had received all her stridhan 
and maintenance in lump sum. She also declared in 
the said compromise deed that she is not entitled to 
any maintenance in future. It is also stated in the said 
compromise deed that the parties to the proceedings 
would withdraw all criminal and civil complaints filed 
against each other which includes the criminal complaint 
filed by the appellant which is the subject-matter of this 
appeal. The said compromise deed contains annexures 
with the particulars of the items given to the appellant 
at the time of marriage and which were returned. The 
said compromise deed is signed by the appellant.
But 
before any order could be passed on the basis of the said 
compromise petition, the appellant herein wrote a letter 
to the Family Court at Nainital which was received by the 
Family Court on 3-10-2003 wherein it was stated that she 
was withdrawing the compromise petition because she 
had not received the agreed amount. But subsequently 
when her statement was recorded by the Family Court, 
she withdrew the said letter of 3-10-2003 and stated before 
the court in her statement that she wanted a divorce and 
that there is no dispute in relation to any amount pending. 
The court, after recording the said statement, granted a 
1	
(2005) 3 SCC 299
572
[2024] 5 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
divorce under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 
dissolving the marriage by mutual consent by its order 
dated 3-3-2004.
5. In the compromise petition, referred to hereinabove, 
both the parties had agreed to withdraw all the civil and 
criminal cases filed by each against the other. It is pursuant 
to this compromise, the above divorce as sought for by 
the appellant was granted by the husband and pursuant 
to the said compromise deed the appellant also withdrew 
Criminal Case No. 63 of 2002 on the file of the Family 
Court, Nainital which was a complaint filed under Section 
125 of the Criminal Procedure Code for maintenance. It 
is on the basis of the submission made on behalf of the 
appellant and on the basis of the terms of the compromise, 
the said case came to be dismissed. However, so far as 
the complaint under Sections 498-A, 323 and 506 IPC 
and under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act 
is concerned, which is the subject-matter of this appeal, 
the appellant did not take any steps to withdraw the same. 
It is in those circumstances, a quashing petition was filed 
before the High Court which came to be partially allowed 
on the ground of the territorial jurisdiction, against the said 
order the appellant has preferred this appeal.
6. From the above-narrated facts, it is clear that in the 
compromise petition filed before the Family Court, the 
appellant admitted that she has received stridhan and
maintenance in lump sum and that she will not be entitled 
to maintenance of any kind in future. She also undertook 
to withdraw all proceedings, civil and criminal, filed and 
initiated by her against the respondents within one month of 
the compromise deed, which included the complaint under 
Sections 498-A, 323 and 506 IPC and under Sections 3 
and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act from which complaint 
this appeal arises. In the said compromise, the respondent 
husband agreed to withdraw his petition filed under Section 
9 of the Hindu Marriage Act pending before the Senior 
Judge, Civil Division, Rampur and also agreed to give a 
consent divorce as sought for by the appellant.
[2024] 5 S.C.R. 
573
Trisha Singh v. Anurag Kumar
7. It is based on the said compromise the appellant 
obtained a divorce as desired by her under Section 13-B 
of the Hindu Marriage Act and in partial compliance with 
the terms of the compromise she withdrew the criminal 
case filed under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure 
Code but for reasons better known to her she did not 
withdraw that complaint from which this appeal arises. 
That apart after the order of the High Court quashing the 
said complaint on the ground of territorial jurisdiction, she 
has chosen to file this appeal. It is in this background, we 
will have to appreciate the merits of this appeal.
8. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant, however, 
contended that though the appellant had signed the 
compromise deed with the abovementioned terms in it, the 
same was obtained by the respondent husband and his 
family under threat and coercion and in fact she did not 
receive lump sum maintenance and her stridhan properties. 
We find it extremely difficult to accept this argument in the 
background of the fact that pursuant to the compromise 
deed the respondent husband has given her a consent 
divorce which she wanted, thus had performed his part 
of the obligation under the compromise deed. Even the 
appellant partially performed her part of the obligations 
by withdrawing her criminal complaint filed under Section 
125. It is true that she had made a complaint in writing to 
the Family Court where
Section 125 CrPC proceedings 
were pending that the compromise deed was filed under 
coercion but she withdrew the same and gave a statement 
before the said court affirming the terms of the compromise 
which statement was recorded by the Family Court and the 
proceedings were dropped and a divorce was obtained. 
Therefore, we are of the opinion that the appellant 
having received the relief she wanted without contest 
on the basis of the terms of the compromise, we cannot 
now accept the argument of the learned counsel for the 
appellant. In our opinion, the conduct of the appellant 
indicates that the criminal complaint from which this 
appeal arises was filed by the wife only to harass the 
respondents.
574
[2024] 5 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
9. In view of the abovesaid subsequent events and 
the conduct of the appellant, it would be an abuse of 
the process of the court if the criminal proceedings 
from which this appeal arises is allowed to continue. 
Therefore, we are of the considered opinion to do 
complete justice, we should while dismissing this 
appeal also quash the proceedings arising from 
criminal case Cr. No. 224 of 2003 registered in Police 
Station Bilaspur (District Rampur) filed under Sections 
498-A, 323 and 506 IPC and under Sections 3 and 4 
of the Dowry Prohibition Act against the respondents 
herein. It is ordered accordingly. The appeal is 
disposed of.”
(emphasis supplied)
10.	 On going through the material available on record, we find that 
the matrimonial relations between the spouses have broken down 
irrevocably and there is no possibility of reconciliation and revival 
of the spousal relationship. Hence, looking at the conduct of the 
petitioner-wife as indicated supra and the other attending facts and 
circumstances, we are inclined to exercise the powers under Article 
142 of the Constitution of India so as to grant decree of divorce and 
hence, the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent is 
dissolved.
11.	 However, it is made clear that the respondent in terms of the settlement 
shall make the remaining payment to the petitioner.
12.	 The petition is allowed in these terms.
13.	 Decree be prepared accordingly.
14.	 No
order as to costs.
15.	 Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
Result of the case: Petition allowed.
†Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey