The appellant (husband) sought to quash an order for his extradition and for divorce based on irretrievable breakdown of marriage. The Court found the extradition order invalid due to the unlawful impoundment of his passport, which violated natural justice principles. Recognizing the short cohabitation period (80 days), the multiple legal cases initiated by both parties, and failed mediation attempts, the Court granted the divorce. As part of the resolution, the appellant is ordered to pay the respondent (wife) a permanent alimony of Rs. 25 lakhs, and all related legal proceedings are to be closed.
(A) Domestic Violence Act, 2005, Section 26 – Domestic Violence – Order instructing authorities to initiate extradition proceedings – Challenge as to – Complaint by respondent against appellant-husband – Appellant residing in USA could not appear personally before the Court – Learned trial Court vide order dated 15th September, 2022, had directed the competent authorities to start the extradition process against the appellant – 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 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 – High Court vide a non-speaking order dismissed the revision petition, stating that no grounds for interference were made out – 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 – Order dated 15th September, 2022, passed by the trial Court, and the order dated 25th January, 2023, passed by the High Court are liable to be quashed and set aside.
(Para 20 to 22)
(B) Constitution of India, Article 142 – Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Section 13 – Irretrievable breakdown of marriage – Divorce – Permanent alimony – Marriage between the appellant-husband and the respondent-wife was solemnized on 19th February, 2018 and 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 – Multiple cases have been filed by the respondent against the appellant and his family members and the appellant and his family members have also filed numerous cases against the respondent – 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 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 – 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 – Held to be a fit case warranting the exercise of the discretion conferred under Article 142(1) of the Constitution of India to dissolve the marriage between the parties on the grounds of irretrievable breakdown of marriage – All the criminal cases/DV Act complaints and civil cases pending between the respondent and the appellant and his family members shall stand closed.
(Para 28, 29, 31, 32, 36, 37 and 47)
(C) Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Section 13 and 25 – Constitution of India, Article 142(1) – Irretrievable breakdown of marriage – Divorce – Permanent alimony – Respondent is currently employed and earning a salary of Rs. 50,000 per month – 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 – 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 – Considering the material on record, the totality of the circumstances, and the peculiar facts of this case, a one-time settlement as alimony, an amount of Rs. 25 lakhs for the respondent would be a fair arrangement 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 – Marriage between the appellant and the respondent dissolved on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage – The Registry to draw a decree accordingly – This amount shall 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 – Made 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.
(Para 38 to 47)
(D) Passports Act, 1967, Section 10 – Impounding of passport – Principles of natural justice – Judicial review – 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. 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 should release the appellant’s passport within a period of one week from today.
(Para 42 and 46)
Vishal Shah V. Monalisha Gupta
Supreme Court: 2025 INSC 254: (DoJ 20-02-2025)
