Case Citation: Transfer Petition (Civil) No. 2367 of 2023; 2025 INSC 883
Decision Date: July 22, 2025.
Bench Strength: 2 Judges (Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih).
Number of Opinion(s): 1 (Majority/Coram opinion delivered by Justice Augustine George Masih).
Legal Provision(s): Section 498-A Indian Penal Code (Cruelty by husband or his relatives), Article 142 of the Constitution of India, Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (inherent powers of the High Court), Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, Family Welfare Committee (FWC) Guidelines.
FACTS
The key facts of Shivangi Bansal v. Sahib Bansal are:
1. Marriage and Child
- Shivangi Bansal, also known as Shivangi Goel got married to Sahib Bansal on December 5, 2015. They had a Hindu wedding ceremony.
- They have a daughter named Raina. She was born on December 23, 2016.
2. Breakdown of Marriage
- The couple separated on 4 October 2018 as a result of serious marital disagreements.
- After separation, the daughter stayed under the mother’s care.
3. Multiple Litigations
- The wife filed multiple criminal and civil cases against the husband and his family, alleging cruelty, dowry harassment, domestic violence, criminal breach of trust, and other grave offenses.
- She also initiated proceedings for maintenance and divorce.
4. Counter-Cases by Husband
- Sahib Bansal initiated multiple criminal complaints and civil lawsuits against Shivangi Bansal and her family, involving allegations of defamation and other purported offenses.
- Several legal proceedings were ongoing in courts in Delhi and Uttar Pradesh.
5. Transfer Petitions Before the Supreme Court
- Shivangi Bansal requested the transfer of a matrimonial case originally filed in the Family Court at Rohini, Delhi, to Hapur, Uttar Pradesh.
- Sahib Bansal requested the transfer of multiple criminal and domestic violence cases from Hapur to Delhi.
6. Amicable Settlement
- During the proceedings before the Supreme Court, both parties reached a comprehensive agreement to resolve all disputes.
- The settlement addressed – Custody and visitation rights for the child, withdrawal or dismissal of pending cases, claims for maintenance and alimony, undertakings to refrain from initiating future legal action.
7. Supreme Court Decision (22 July 2025)
- The Supreme Court invoked its authority under Article 142 of the Constitution to resolve the entire dispute conclusively.
- The mother was granted custody of the child, with the father awarded visitation rights.
- All pending civil and criminal proceedings between the parties were dismissed as part of the settlement.
- The Court dissolved the marriage.
ISSUES RAISED
1. Whether the Supreme Court could invoke its extraordinary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to dissolve the marriage and terminate multiple civil and criminal proceedings between the parties.
2. Whether the Court has the authority to dismiss ongoing criminal cases stemming from matrimonial disputes as part of an overall settlement.
3. Whether guidelines are needed to prevent abuse of matrimonial-cruelty provisions while still safeguarding real victims of domestic violence and dowry harassment.
4. What custody and visitation arrangement would best serve the minor child’s interests.
CONTENTIONS
Contentions of the Petitioner (Shivangi Bansal – Wife)
- The wife claimed she endured cruelty, harassment, and mistreatment at the hands of her husband and his family following their marriage.
- She argued that she needed to start several legal proceedings to safeguard her rights, including those concerning maintenance, domestic violence, and matrimonial relief.
- She requested that specific matrimonial matters be transferred to a court more convenient for her, contending that travelling and pursuing legal proceedings in a different jurisdiction would cause undue hardship, particularly given her responsibility for the minor child.
- She argued that the minor daughter’s well-being demanded that custody stay with her, given that she had been the main caregiver since the parties separated.
- She pursued a legally binding agreement to secure a fair financial settlement and resolve outstanding disputes.
Contentions of the Respondent (Sahib Bansal – Husband)
- The husband argued that many criminal and civil cases brought against him and his family were unfounded, overstated, or driven by marital conflict.
- He contended that the numerous cases filed across various jurisdictions imposed undue hardship and harassment on him and his family.
- He asked for the transfer of the case to Delhi and requested that the disputes be consolidated to prevent overlapping proceedings.
- He claimed his parental rights and requested regular, substantive visitation and contact
with his daughter.
- He backed a comprehensive settlement aimed at permanently resolving all disputes, including the withdrawal or dismissal of ongoing cases.
Common Contention Ultimately Accepted by Both Parties
Before the Supreme Court, both parties agreed that:
- Their marriage was beyond repair.
- Pursuing multiple lawsuits would not serve any useful purpose.
- A complete settlement was better than continuing in legal disputes.
- Custody, visitation, financial disputes, and ongoing proceedings must be conclusively settled through the Court’s intervention under Article 142.
Rationale
The rationale (reasoning) behind the Supreme Court’s decision was as follows:
1. To Do Complete Justice Under Article 142
- The Court noted that the parties had been involved in numerous civil and criminal cases over several years. Because they had willingly reached a comprehensive settlement, continuing the litigation would only extend hostility. Thus, the Court invoked its authority under Article 142 of the Constitution to secure full justice and conclude the dispute definitively.
2. Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage
- The Court acknowledged that the marriage had fully deteriorated and that reconciliation was no longer possible. Under such circumstances, requiring the parties to stay legally married would be of no practical benefit.
3. Avoidance of Multiplicity of Proceedings
- Multiple cases concerning the same matrimonial dispute were pending in various courts. The Court concluded that a complete resolution would conserve judicial time, minimize unwarranted lawsuits, and stop additional harassment for both parties.
4. Child’s Welfare
- In addressing the disputes between the spouses, the Court stressed that the child’s welfare and best interests must take precedence above all else. The custody and visitation arrangements were approved with this goal in mind.
5. Resolving Marital Disputes
- The Court observed that family conflicts are distinct from typical adversarial court proceedings. When parties voluntarily resolve their disputes in a lawful and authentic manner, courts ought to support such agreements to help restore peace and stability.
6. Need for Safeguards in Matrimonial Criminal Cases
- The Court voiced concern over the growing number of matrimonial criminal cases, which frequently involve several family members. While reiterating the significance of legal protection for authentic victims of cruelty and domestic violence, the Court underscored the necessity of procedural safeguards to avoid the wrongful application of criminal law and unwarranted arrests.
Defects of Law
The case exposed certain shortcomings in the existing legal framework governing matrimonial disputes:
1. Multiplicity of Proceedings
One matrimonial issue led to multiple legal actions including criminal charges, domestic violence cases, maintenance requests, custody battles, and divorce filings frequently across different courts. This results in:
- A delay in justice.
- Higher expenses due to litigation.
- The emotional and financial strain experienced by both parties.
2. Absence of a Unified Resolution Framework
Indian family law lacks a single, cohesive system to address all matrimonial disputes within a single legal forum. Parties are required to file in separate courts governed by different statutes, leading to scattered litigation.
3. Misapplication of Criminal Provisions
The case underscored worries about the improper use of provisions like Section 498A of the IPC (cruelty by husband or relatives). In certain instances, several family members may be unfairly involved due to inadequate review, leading to personal hardship and harm to their reputation.
4. Delay in Settlement and Closure
Even when the parties are ready to reach an agreement, procedural hurdles and numerous ongoing cases can postpone final resolution. The Supreme Court had to resort to Article 142 in order to ensure a complete resolution.
5. Limited Legal Recognition of Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage
Although courts often deal with marriages that have fully collapsed, the irretrievable breakdown of marriage is still not recognized as a statutory basis for divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Consequently, parties frequently rely on the Supreme Court’s extraordinary powers granted by Article 142.
6. Jurisdictional Challenges
Couples frequently initiate legal proceedings in separate cities or states, leading to added inconvenience and higher litigation costs. Transfer petitions are often required, introducing an additional stage in the process.
7. Impact on Children
Extended marital disputes may harm children by generating uncertainty about custody, visitation, and their relationships with parents. Current procedures do not always guarantee a swift resolution of child-related matters.
INFERENCE
The case of Shivangi Bansal v. Sahib Bansal highlights the commitment of the Supreme Court to provide full justice in matrimonial matters through the use of its extraordinary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution. The Court acknowledged that long litigation between spouses leads to emotional, financial, and psychological suffering not only to the spouses but also to their children.
The judgment emphasizes that when the marriage has irretrievably broken down and the parties have settled their differences voluntarily, the courts should adopt a pragmatic approach and not allow a multiplicity of proceedings to continue. The decision also emphasizes the need to balance the need to protect real victims of matrimonial cruelty with protection against abuse of the criminal law.
Another important inference is that the welfare of the child takes precedence in family disputes between the parents. The Court favours reconciliation, settlement and finality over adversarial litigation.
Conclusion
The case lays down that the Supreme Court can invoke Article 142 to deal with matrimonial disputes by providing a complete remedy of divorce, custody, quashing of proceedings and so on, if such is necessary to do complete justice. It also stresses the need for reforms to curb multiplicity of litigation and to maintain a balance between the protection of legal rights and abuse of process.
Submitted by: Annapurna Das
Brainware University