Invoking Article 142, the Supreme Court dissolved an irretrievably broken marriage, holding that its continuance would only prolong agony. The Court granted divorce despite trial and High Court findings, stressing complete justice over rigid statutory grounds of law.
The Supreme Court granted a mutual consent divorce while praising the woman for voluntarily waiving alimony and all financial claims. The Bench remarked, “We appreciate this kind gesture, which is very rare nowadays,” acknowledging her fairness in the settlement.
The Supreme Court ordered interim release of the accused after his surrender and apology, directing him to deposit Rs 1 lakh with the Delhi High Court Lawyers’ Welfare Fund. The Bench warned that failure to pay would lead to automatic cancellation of bail.
In a rare move under Article 142, the Supreme Court set aside a man’s POCSO conviction, noting the relationship was driven by “love, not lust.” The court observed the couple is now married with a child and living a peaceful life.
SC hears suo motu case on pay disparities in consumer commissions, stressing uniform salaries and allowances. Next hearing set for October 2025.
The Supreme Court dissolved a couple’s marriage by mutual consent, urging them to shed egos and focus on their daughter’s well-being. The husband will pay Rs 50,000 monthly for the child’s upkeep.
The Centre told the Supreme Court that fixing timelines for President and Governors to act on Bills would upset the constitutional balance, stressing such powers are “non-justiciable.” SG Tushar Mehta warned that judicial overreach could trigger “constitutional disorder.”
Explore Article 142 of the Constitution as the Supreme Court’s power for ‘complete justice’ or ‘judicial overreach’, explained with cases, scope, and constitutional significance.
The Supreme Court dissolved the marriage after 15 years, invoking Article 142, and ordered the husband to pay Rs 1.25 crore as permanent alimony to wife and son.
The Centre has warned the Supreme Court that fixing a timeline for Governors may create “constitutional chaos,” stressing that even under Article 142, the Court cannot amend or override the original intent of the Constitution makers.
