S.142 NI ACT EXPLAINED – COMPLAINTS ARISING FROM DISHONOUR OF ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUES MUST BE INSTITUTED ONLY BEFORE THE COURT THAT HAS JURISDICTION OVER THE BRANCH OF THE BANK WHERE THE PAYEE MAINTAINS THEIR ACCOUNT – SCI
December 5, 2025PROCEEDINGS U/S 12 DV ACT NOT EQUIVALENT TO CRIMINAL PROSECUTION; MAGISTRATE CAN DROP PROCEEDINGS – HC SB JKL
December 5, 2025HC CAN'T GRANT DIVORCE ON IRRETRIEVABLE BREAKDOWN OF MARRIAGE – DIVORCE DECREE SET ASIDE – SCI
Name of the Court: Supreme Court of India.
The case Sandhya Sahu v. Dharmendra Sahu was decided by the Supreme Court of India on 17 October 2025. The appeal was filed by the wife, Sandhya Sahu, challenging the judgment of the High Court of Chhattisgarh, which had granted divorce to the husband after reversing the Family Court’s decision. The Supreme Court carefully examined whether the High Court’s judgment was legally sustainable and whether it followed the principles required for granting divorce on the grounds of cruelty and desertion.
Background and Marriage History
The parties were married on 29 April 2009 and had two daughters. After some years, marital relations deteriorated, leading the wife to file an FIR on 10 April 2017 under Section 498A IPC against her husband and his family. These criminal proceedings ultimately ended with the acquittal of the husband.
Family Court Proceedings
The husband filed a petition seeking divorce on the grounds of cruelty and desertion. The Family Court rejected his plea, concluding that:
-
It was actually the husband who had behaved with cruelty,
-
His conduct had driven the wife to a suicide attempt,
-
The wife had justifiable reasons to live in her maternal home, and
-
Allegations of desertion were false and unproven.
High Court Decision
The High Court took a contrary view and granted divorce to the husband. It relied heavily on the following:
-
The wife had lodged an FIR under 498A IPC.
-
Both parties had been living separately for more than five years.
-
The wife admitted important facts, such as the husband taking care of their elder daughter.
The High Court concluded that the wife had committed mental cruelty and had deserted the husband. It referred to earlier judgments such as:
-
Rani Narasimha Sastry v. Rani Suneela Rani (2020)
-
Satpal Singh v. Preeti Pahuja (2024)
However, the Supreme Court found that the High Court failed to examine whether the statutory requirements for cruelty or desertion were actually met. Instead, the High Court granted divorce merely because the spouses lived separately for years—an approach the Supreme Court labelled as unsustainable.
Supreme Court’s Observations
The Supreme Court emphasized:
-
A divorce decree cannot be granted without proper discussion of evidence and legal grounds.
-
Merely living separately for several years does not automatically amount to cruelty or desertion.
-
The High Court ignored key findings of the Family Court and did not evaluate whether the husband had proved his case.
-
The doctrine of irretrievable breakdown of marriage cannot be invoked by High Courts; only the Supreme Court can apply it under Article 142, as held in Shilpa Shailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan (2023).
Final Decision
The Supreme Court:
-
Set aside the High Court’s judgment dated 28 January 2025,
-
Restored the matter back to the High Court for a fresh decision,
-
Directed parties to appear before the High Court on 11 December 2025,
-
Clarified that the High Court must now decide the matter strictly on merits.
The appeal was accordingly allowed.
