Case title:
Anurag Vijaykumar Goel v. State of Maharashtra & Anr.
Date of Order:
5 August 2025
Bench:
Justice B. R. Gavai, Justice K. Vinod Chandran, and Justice N. V. Anjaria
Parties:
Anurag Vijaykumar Goel (Appellant)
State of Maharashtra and Respondent Wife (Respondents)
SUBJECT
The case deals with the fallout of a failed marriage where both parties had earlier gone through divorce, and their second attempt at marriage too ended in conflict. It touches upon the legal power of the Supreme Court to dissolve a marriage that has broken down completely, even when statutory procedures like mutual consent divorce have not been fully completed. It also questions whether criminal proceedings under Section 498A IPC should be allowed to continue when the complaint is vague and filed after a long delay. The judgment combines matrimonial relief with quashing of criminal charges and attempts to end all litigation between the parties by invoking the Court's constitutional powers.
IMPORTANT PROVISIONS
1. Article 142 of the Constitution of India
(1) The Supreme Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree or make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it, and any decree so passed or orders so made shall be enforceable throughout the territory of India in such manner as may be prescribed by or under any law made by Parliament and, until provision in that behalf is so made, in such manner as the President may by order prescribe.
(2) Subject to the provisions of any law made in this behalf by Parliament, the Supreme Court shall, as respects the whole of the territory of India, have all and every power to make any order for the purpose of securing the attendance of any person, the discovery or production of any documents, or the investigation or punishment of any contempt of itself.
2. Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, a petition for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce may be presented to the district court by both the parties to a marriage together, whether such marriage was solemnised before or after the commencement of the Marriage Laws (Amendment) Act, 1976, on the ground that they have been living separately for a period of one year or more, that they have not been able to live together and that they have mutually agreed that the marriage should be dissolved.
(2) On the motion of both the parties made not earlier than six months after the date of the presentation of the petition referred to in sub-section (1) and not later than eighteen months after the said date, if the petition is not withdrawn in the meantime, the court shall, on being satisfied, after hearing the parties and after making such inquiry as it thinks fit, that a marriage has been solemnised and that the averments in the petition are true, pass a decree of divorce declaring the marriage to be dissolved with effect from the date of the decree.
3. Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.
Explanation.—For the purposes of this section, “cruelty” means—
(a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or
(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.
4. Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
Whoever commits criminal breach of trust shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.
5. Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
When a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone.
6. Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court, or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.
Facts
The appellant and respondent's marriage was not for more than two years and soon soured due to frequent arguments. Both of them had been divorced before and entered the current marriage with a hope of beginning anew. The couple resided in a Mumbai apartment, which eventually became an issue. The appellant has stated that he deserted the house and resigned from work to look after his autistic son and elderly parents in Faridabad. The appellant has accused the marriage of becoming unbearable following constant quarrels and stress. The respondent accused the appellant of subjecting her to domestic violence and deserting her without any assistance.
The judicial wars started in 2017 when the respondent lodged a complaint with the police. This was followed by the FIR being registered under Section 498A IPC in April 2018. Meanwhile, a case under the DV Act was also registered. Simultaneously, the appellant had moved a petition for divorce in the Family Court.
After decades of battle, the couple finally consented to resolve their differences. They executed a settlement agreement wherein the appellant undertook to transfer the flat to the respondent and she undertook to settle the home loan dues and maintenance charges. The first divorce motion was submitted and granted. But prior to filing the second motion, the respondent went back on the agreement.
Following the failure of the settlement, the appellant approached the High Court to quash the FIR, which was denied by the High Court. He also initiated contempt proceedings in the Delhi High Court on the grounds that the respondent had gone back on a consent order, but this was turned down by the Division Bench. Having no alternative, the appellant approached the Supreme Court, seeking dissolution of the marriage under Article 142 and closure of all pending proceedings.
ISSUES RAISED
The Court was required to rule on whether the criminal case under Section 498A could continue in light of the indeterminate character of the complaint and the inordinate delay in its filing. It also had to make a determination if the marriage could be terminated under Article 142 despite the fact that the second motion for mutual consent divorce hadn't been finalized. Another issue was whether the respondent's decision to back out of the settlement agreement was reasonable, and whether she was entitled to move for increased alimony or decline to go forward with divorce after already getting some benefits under the initial settlement.
ARGUMENTS PUT FORWARD BY THE APPELLANT
The appellant, through senior counsel, had contended that the marriage had evidently collapsed and there was no possibility of a reconciliation. He had already made major portions of the settlement. The respondent had received payment of almost ten lakhs towards discharge of the housing loan and had continued in occupation of the flat but subsequently reneged on the agreement without good cause.
He also contended that the charges leveled in the FIR were generic and absent of any particular episode of cruelty or abuse. The FIR had been registered one year after he had left the premises, indicating that it was motivated and not based on new facts.
He asserted that he was still willing to transfer the flat or give a reasonable amount in consideration, but now the respondent had started putting inordinate demands of Rs. 12 crores, which were not included in the original agreement. He implored that the litigation had dragged for long enough, and now it was time for both sides to move ahead.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE RESPONDENT
The respondent came in person and vehemently objected to the plea for divorce. She asserted that she had been deceived into signing the settlement under duress and that the settlement was unjust. She asserted that the appellant was still doing well financially and had not revealed his actual financial position. She took recourse to his LinkedIn profile and past income tax returns to indicate that he still earned a lot of money. She also added that she had no personal income and was living in economic hardship. Her greatest worry was that the apartment had delinquent maintenance fees and she was facing eviction. She also claimed that the intention of the appellant was to coerce her to complete the divorce proceedings on his conditions, and that the criminal case was warranted considering the nature of his actions.
JUDGEMENT ANALYSIS
The Court first went through the chronology of events and the words of the complaint. It pointed out that the complaint was filed as early as March 2017 and the FIR was lodged in April 2018, a whole year after the couple had parted ways. The Court opined that the complaint was vague and did not attribute any concrete acts of cruelty that would warrant framing charges under Section 498A. The FIR referred to marital disputes and mutual allegations, but no mention was made of any definite occurrence of violence or abuse. The Court observed that the complaint seemed to be the result of an emotional breakdown, not a criminal offense.
Even though the Court agreed that the respondent was legally entitled to withdraw from the mutual consent divorce prior to the second motion, it noted that this withdrawal also had to be viewed in light of the general conduct of the parties. The Court recognized that the respondent had accepted payments against the settlement and had occupied the apartment for a number of years without paying maintenance dues. The circumstance that she had accepted the terms in the first place and after that made new conditions put into doubt the sincerity of her complaint.
Under its jurisdiction conferred by Article 142, the Court decided that the marriage had irretrievably collapsed. The parties had been contesting for over eight years, and reconciliation was impossible. The Court held that the conditions of the earlier settlement were reasonable and that the appellant had completed most of his commitments. It ordered that the appellant would pay off the entire outstanding maintenance charges of the apartment society by 1 September 2025 and then register a gift deed to transfer the flat and parking areas to the respondent. If the respondent did not show up for registration, the divorce would be effective anyway.
The Court also quashed the criminal proceedings under Section 498A, noting that the FIR did not reveal any cognizable offence and proceeding with the case would be an harassment. It held that power to quash proceedings should be exercised to avert abuse of process and to see that parties are not led through unnecessary trials where the case is on weak and stale allegations.
In conclusion, the Court explicitly stated that all other pending cases between the couple would be deemed closed. Neither party could bring any further civil or criminal cases regarding the marriage once the conditions of the judgment had been met.
CONCLUSION
This judgment reflects the Court’s pragmatic approach in dealing with broken marriages. Rather than prolong the suffering of both parties through rigid procedures and drawn-out litigation, the Court chose to apply its extraordinary constitutional powers to bring closure. It recognised that marriage, once broken beyond repair, serves no social or legal purpose. The judgment upholds the principle that justice sometimes requires flexibility, especially when formal legal paths have failed to bring relief.
By quashing the criminal case and dissolving the marriage under Article 142, the Court ensured that both parties could move forward with dignity. It also ensured that the respondent's basic concerns about housing were addressed through a binding order of property transfer. The judgment carefully balanced the rights and obligations of both sides and marks a humane application of the law to a deeply personal conflict.
