The Supreme Court of India invoked Article 142 to grant an instant mutual divorce, emphasizing that justice must be swift and compassionate. This landmark ruling highlights the Court’s evolving approach to mediation and matrimonial settlements.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: In a judgment on October 31, 2025, the Supreme Court of India granted a divorce by mutual consent in the case of Varsha Chaudhary vs. Pushpendra Dagur. The verdict highlights the Court’s commitment to promoting amicable settlements and using its extraordinary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to deliver complete justice between the parties.
Background of the Case
The case originated as a Transfer Petition (Civil) No. 2064 of 2025, filed by the wife, Varsha Chaudhary. The dispute concerned the transfer of a divorce petition pending before the Family Court-01, Jaipur Metropolitan, to another jurisdiction.
During proceedings, both parties expressed a desire to explore mediation. The matter was accordingly referred to the Supreme Court Mediation Centre, where the parties reached a comprehensive settlement on 25 September 2025.
Under the settlement, the petitioner-wife received ₹17,00,000 (seventeen lakh rupees) as permanent alimony in full and final satisfaction of all her claims. Both parties confirmed that the agreement was voluntary and that no other disputes were pending before any court.
ALSO READ: Anger No Excuse: MP High Court Grants Divorce After Wife’s False Infidelity Allegations
Supreme Court’s Reasoning
The Bench comprising Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice N.V. Anjaria observed that the chances of reconciliation were “remote” and that both parties, being educated and fully aware of the settlement terms, had chosen to part ways amicably.
Relying on Article 142 of the Constitution, which empowers the Supreme Court to pass any order necessary to do “complete justice,” the Bench dissolved the marriage immediately. This avoided the delay that typically accompanies the statutory cooling-off period under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
The Court also permitted the correction of the respondent’s name from “Pushpender Dagur” to “Pushpendra Dagur” in the record, ensuring procedural accuracy.
ALSO READ: Denying Intimacy in Marriage: Divorce Under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Explained
The judgment strengthens the Supreme Court’s precedent of using Article 142 to finalize consensual divorces where reconciliation is impossible and procedural delays would serve no purpose. It aligns with prior rulings such as Amardeep Singh v. Harveen Kaur (2017) and K. Thiruvengadam v. K. Shyamala (2024), where the Court recognized that strict adherence to formalities should not impede substantive justice.
The order also reaffirms the institutional importance of mediation in matrimonial cases. By encouraging negotiated settlements, the Court continues to shift Indian family jurisprudence toward conciliation rather than confrontation.
Case Title:
Varsha Chaudhary and Pushpendra Dagur
TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) NO.2064/2025
READ ORDER
