CITATION2023 SC 544 
COURTSupreme Court of India
APPELLANTShilpa Shailesh
RESPONDENTVarun Sreenivasan
BENCHJ. Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J. Sanjiv Khanna, J. Abhay S. Oka, J. Vikram Nath and J. J.K. Maheshwari.


The Supreme Court has reiterated the importance of marriage as a sacred societal institution, yet modern challenges often lead to irreparable breakdowns. The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 offers grounds for divorce and includes a waiting period for mutual consent divorce, aimed at fostering reflection and reconciliation. However, this waiting period can prolong suffering in cases where reconciliation is unlikely. The Court, under Article 142, has been petitioned to waive this waiting period for mutual consent divorce in exceptional cases. Conflicting views among Benches emerged regarding the Court’s power to override statutory procedures. To provide clarity, a Constitution Bench was convened in the case of Shilpa Shailash v. Varun Sreenivasan, which examined the Court’s powers under Article 142 and reconciled them with the sanctity of marriage under Hindu law. This verdict offers doctrinal clarity and resolves key issues in matrimonial litigation, marking a significant development in Indian family law jurisprudence.


The present case revolves around a prolonged marital conflict between Shilpa Sailesh and Varun Sreenivasan, both embroiled in a lengthy legal dispute seeking the termination of their marriage. The couple had lived apart for over six years, with numerous failed attempts at reconciliation. Their legal journey involved various avenues, including proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act and criminal prosecutions under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. Initially, they pursued legal action under the Domestic Violence Act and Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, demonstrating their pursuit of justice through different legal channels.

Efforts to reconcile at the lower court level proved insufficient in addressing underlying marital issues such as breakdowns in communication, allegations of misconduct, financial disagreements, and irreconcilable differences. These persistent challenges led the parties to elevate the matter to higher judicial authorities. Contradictory accounts in subsequent legal proceedings complicated the case, prompting Supreme Court involvement due to the lower courts’ inability to provide a definitive resolution. The intricacies of the case and complex legal arguments made it difficult for lower courts to reach a conclusive decision, necessitating the Supreme Court’s intervention for a final verdict.

The allegations revolved around mutual accusations of cruelty, domestic violence, and the irretrievable breakdown of the marital relationship. The case involved significant legal provisions, including Article 142(1) of the Constitution of India, Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, the Domestic Violence Act, Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, and Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code.


The main inquiries posed for examination were:

  • 1. The extent and reach of authority granted by Article 142 to ensure “complete justice.”
  • 2. Whether, under Article 142, the Court is empowered to issue a decree of mutual consent divorce without adhering to the waiting period stipulated in Section 13B, based on an agreement between the parties, and also resolve other related legal matters.
  • 3. Whether divorce can be decreed under Article 142 on the basis of irretrievable breakdown of marriage, even if one party opposes it.


Ms. Shilpa Shailesh filed a transfer petition to move divorce proceedings from Kerala to Mumbai. Her arguments were as follows:

  1. Wide Powers of Supreme Court: The appellant’s counsel argued that the Supreme Court, under Article 142, possesses broad powers to ensure complete justice in any pending matter. Previous rulings were cited to support the contention that the Court can issue any necessary decree or order.
  2. Discretion to Waive Waiting Period: It was argued that the 6-month waiting period prescribed in Section 13B(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act is not mandatory but rather directory. The Court can exercise discretion to waive or shorten this period in cases where prolonged litigation and reconciliation are futile.
  3. Purpose of Waiting Period: The appellant emphasized that the 6-month period aims to allow for reflection and reconsideration before divorce. However, in cases where reconciliation is impossible due to irretrievable breakdown of the marriage, this period only serves to prolong mental anguish for the parties involved.
  4. Granting Divorce Decree: The appellant asserted that the Supreme Court, using its powers under Article 142, can grant a divorce decree by mutual consent without adhering to the statutory waiting period under Section 13B(2). Continuing marital ties in such cases would be unjust and inequitable.
  5. Precedents Supporting Waiver: Precedents like Amardeep Singh v. Harveen Kaur and Amit Kumar v. Suman Beniwal were cited to argue that the statutory cooling-off period can be waived in deserving cases to ensure complete justice.
  6. Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage: It was contended that in the present case, the marriage had irretrievably broken down with no possibility of revival. Therefore, enforcing the 6-month waiting period would only exacerbate the mental trauma and hardship already endured during lengthy litigation.
  7. Recording Mutual Settlement: The appellant urged that the mutually agreed-upon dissolution of marriage should be recorded using the extraordinary powers vested in the Court under Article 142 to ensure complete justice, particularly given that proceedings were ongoing in the Supreme Court.


The Supreme Court conducts a thorough assessment of its extraordinary authority under Article 142(1) of the Constitution to ensure comprehensive justice in all matters before it. Tracing the evolution of Article 142(1) jurisprudence, the Court recalls previous Constitution Bench rulings like I.C. Golak Nath v. State of Punjab (1967), which depicted this power as expansive and adaptable to provide fair remedies beyond statutory limitations. Referring to Union Carbide Corporation v. Union of India (1991), the Court asserts that prohibitions in ordinary laws cannot constrain constitutional powers under Article 142 unless they embody fundamental public policy. Thus, the Court affirms the supremacy of its special powers over statutory constraints.

Analyzing the mandatory 6-month waiting period under Section 13B(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, for mutual consent divorce, the Court concludes that this does not limit its discretion under Article 142. Drawing from Amardeep Singh v. Harveen Kaur (2017), the Court confirms its authority to waive the waiting period by invoking its equitable jurisdiction under Article 142(1) in cases where the marriage has irretrievably broken down with no chance of reconciliation.

Regarding the use of Article 142 powers to grant a divorce decree despite non-compliance with Section 13B procedures, the Court expressly overturns conflicting views in Anjana Kishore v. Puneet Kishore (2002) and Manish Goel v. Rohini Goel (2010), dispelling doubts around its use to decree divorce between consenting parties without procedural compliance under statutory law.

Citing precedents like Naveen Kohli v. Neelu Kohli (2006) and Ashok Hurra v. Rupa Bipin Zaveri (1997), and exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 142(1), the Court legitimizes the doctrine of irretrievable breakdown of marriage as a ground for divorce, despite its absence in the Hindu Marriage Act. By adapting the law to social reality and contemporary jurisprudential thinking, the Court expands divorce grounds to include de facto spousal separation.

Referring to foreign precedents like Owens v. Owens (2018), which highlight the shortcomings of fault-based divorce laws, the Court emphasizes the difficulty and inequity in assigning blame for marriage breakdown. It asserts that compelling estranged couples to remain married perpetuates injustice. Consequently, the Court advances from outdated notions of marriage by establishing progressive jurisprudence for dissolving marriages with irretrievable breakdown.

In conclusion, the Court significantly broadens the scope of its special powers under Article 142(1) to overcome procedural obstacles and deliver complete restorative justice in deserving cases. It advocates for a cautious, case-by-case approach based on the facts and equities involved, bridging the gap between law and life by tailoring remedies to meet the ends of justice.


  1. In the case of Shilpa Shailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan, the Supreme Court delivered a landmark judgment that significantly shaped Indian family law jurisprudence. The judgment addressed complex issues surrounding divorce, marital disputes, and the exercise of judicial discretion under Article 142(1) of the Constitution.
  2. The Court examined the scope of its extraordinary powers under Article 142(1) to ensure complete justice in matrimonial matters. It emphasized the need to balance the sanctity of marriage with the recognition of irretrievable breakdowns, acknowledging the evolving societal norms and challenges faced by estranged couples.
  3. One of the pivotal aspects of the judgment was the Court’s interpretation of the waiting period mandated under Section 13B(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, for mutual consent divorce. The Court held that this waiting period did not restrict its discretion under Article 142(1), affirming its authority to waive the waiting period in cases of irretrievable breakdown of marriage.
  4. Moreover, the judgment clarified the Court’s power to grant divorce decrees despite non-compliance with procedural requirements under statutory law, overturning conflicting views from previous cases. It recognized the doctrine of irretrievable breakdown of marriage as a legitimate ground for divorce, despite its absence in the Hindu Marriage Act, thereby aligning the law with contemporary social realities.
  5. By citing relevant precedents and exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction, the Court demonstrated a progressive approach in adapting legal principles to meet the evolving needs of society. The judgment emphasized the Court’s commitment to delivering complete restorative justice in matrimonial disputes while upholding constitutional values of justice, liberty, and dignity.
  6. Overall, the judgment in Shilpa Shailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan represents a significant step forward in Indian family law, providing clarity on the Court’s powers and expanding the grounds for divorce to address the complexities of modern marital relationships.


In summary, the Supreme Court’s landmark judgment demonstrates a progressive stance by broadening the scope of its special remedial authority under Article 142(1) of the Constitution. While upholding the sanctity of marriage, the Court acknowledges the necessity for practical legal remedies in cases of stagnant and estranged marriages. It has judiciously established guiding principles and safeguards for the exercise of its extraordinary powers under Article 142(1) to decree divorce in cases involving irretrievable breakdown of marriage. Thus, the Court aims to prevent the unnecessary prolongation of traumatic matrimonial disputes, which only serve to exacerbate the suffering of estranged couples.

Simultaneously, the Court rightly advises that Article 142 powers must be invoked cautiously, considering each case individually and evaluating all relevant facts and circumstances. This balanced approach maintains the integrity of the institution of marriage while expanding divorce grounds to encompass de facto separation through equitable powers. Overall, this progressive decision marks a significant departure from outdated notions of marriage by recognizing the realities of fractured relationships. The Court has adapted to evolving social norms and global legal perspectives, aiming to address injustices faced by trapped couples due to procedural constraints, all while upholding constitutional values of justice, liberty, and dignity.



This Article is written by Yashveer Singh Virk, a BA LLB student at CCS University.