Supreme Court Dissolves Marriage For Irretrievable Breakdown, Quashes Extradition Direction And Directs Release Of Passport

A bench of Justices Pankaj Mithal and Sandeep Mehta heard an appeal by Vishal Shah against the Calcutta High Court's dismissal of a criminal revision challenging a Magistrate's order directing initiation of extradition proceedings for the appellant's non-appearance in proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (DV Act); the appellant also sought dissolution of marriage under Article 142 of the Constitution.

The Court allowed the appeal in part and issued multiple directions. It quashed and set aside the Magistrate's order dated 15 September 2022 and the High Court's non‑speaking order of 25 January 2023 which had affirmed the initiation of extradition proceedings. The Court held that the Magistrate “grossly erred” in directing extradition when the appellant's passport had been impounded and non-appearance therefore flowed from circumstances beyond his control, and observed that proceedings under the DV Act were quasi‑criminal and did not ordinarily require personal presence. The Court found the impounding of the passport ex facie illegal for want of adherence to principles of natural justice and ordered its release within one week. Exercising its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 142(1), the Court held that the marriage had suffered an “irretrievable breakdown” and dissolved the marriage; it directed the appellant to deposit Rs. 25,00,000 as permanent alimony within two months and ordered closure of all pending criminal and civil proceedings between the parties. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “This Court, in the exercise of power under Article 142(1) of the Constitution of India, has the discretion to dissolve the marriage on the ground of its irretrievable breakdown. This discretionary power is to be exercised to do ‘complete justice’ to the parties, wherein this Court is satisfied that the facts established show that the marriage has completely failed, and there is no possibility that the parties will cohabit together, and continuation of the formal legal relationship is unjustified. The Court, as a court of equity, is required to also balance the circumstances and the background in which the party opposing the dissolution is placed.” The Court further noted that the passport impounding violated Maneka Gandhi principles and quoted that the Passport Authority must give reasons and afford an opportunity to be heard.

Background The marriage was solemnised on 19 February 2018 and the spouses cohabited in the United States for roughly 80 days. The appellant alleged repeated domestic abuse by the respondent and reported incidents to US police in March–April 2018; the respondent alleged dowry‑related cruelty and lodged multiple proceedings in India and the US. Numerous criminal, civil, matrimonial and DV proceedings followed in Muzaffarpur, Howrah and other fora. The appellant's passport was impounded on 3 October 2018 under Section 10 of the Passports Act, 1967, after multiple cases were filed against him. A Miscellaneous Case under Section 26 of the DV Act was filed by the respondent in Howrah; the Magistrate issued a notice to the appellant and directed personal appearance on 15 September 2022; the appellant did not appear and the Magistrate directed that competent authorities initiate extradition proceedings. The appellant challenged that order by way of criminal revision in the Calcutta High Court which dismissed the petition by a non‑speaking order of 25 January 2023. Before this Court the appellant also filed an interlocutory application under Article 142 seeking dissolution on the ground of irretrievable breakdown. The Supreme Court found that the Magistrate erred in treating personal presence as mandatory in quasi‑criminal DV proceedings and that non‑appearance was attributable to the prior impounding of the passport; it held the impounding unlawful for failure to follow natural justice and ordered its release. Finding long separation, short cohabitation, mutual and multifarious litigation and no children from the marriage, the Court exercised Article 142 to dissolve the marriage, awarded Rs. 25 lakh as lump‑sum permanent alimony to be deposited in the Registry within two months, ordered disbursement to the respondent, and directed that all pending proceedings between the parties stand closed.

Case Details: Case No.: 2025 INSC 254 Case Title: Vishal Shah v. Monalisha Gupta & Ors. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Not indicated in the judgment For the Respondent(s): Not indicated in the judgment