The Supreme Court of India recently delivered a significant ruling in the case of Vishal Shah v. Monalisha Gupta & Ors., touching upon multiple aspects of matrimonial disputes, extradition laws, and the principle of irretrievable breakdown of marriage
.
What's the Matter?
Vishal Shah, an Indian citizen working as a software engineer in the United States, married Monalisha Gupta in February 2018. Shortly after their marriage, the couple moved to the U.S. However, within 80 days of cohabitation, their relationship turned sour, leading to severe allegations and multiple legal battles in India and abroad. Upon their return to India,
Vishal moved back to the U.S., while Monalisha initiated various criminal and civil cases against him and his family members, including charges under Section 498A (cruelty by husband and relatives), the Dowry Prohibition Act, and domestic violence laws.
One major aspect of the case was the order by the Judicial Magistrate, Howrah, directing the initiation of extradition proceedings against Vishal for failing to appear in court. His passport had already been impounded by authorities in 2018 due to the ongoing matrimonial cases.
6. In view of the aforesaid cases registered against the appellant, his passport was impounded by the
concerned authorities on 3rd October, 2018. Between 2018 and 2020, the respondent resided in the same
house with her mother-in-law, i.e., the appellant’s mother. As per the appellant, during this period, the
respondent had subjected his mother to severe physical and mental torture, ultimately forcing her to leave the
house and seek shelter at her daughter's residence on 14th September, 2020. Consequently, a Complaint Case
No. 446C of 2020 was filed by the mother of the appellant against the respondent for the offences
punishable under Sections 323, 341, 342, 379, 403, 504, 506, and 120B IPC
7. As a counterblast, the respondent also filed an application under Section 26 of the DV Act against the
appellant, his mother, and five other close relatives, which came to be registered as Miscellaneous Case No.
440 of 2022 in Complaint Case No. 446C of 2020. The application filed by the respondent was proceeded with,
and vide order dated 11th August 2022, the appellant was directed to personally appear before the Court on
the scheduled date, i.e., 15th September 2022. However, when the appellant failed to appear before the trial court on the notified date, the competent authorities were instructed to initiate the extradition process against him.
What Happened in Court?
The Supreme Court found this order legally unsustainable, stating that the impoundment of Shah’s passport restricted his ability to return to India. It was held that extradition in a quasi-criminal proceeding under the Domestic Violence Act was unnecessary and legally unjustified. Citing Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978), the Court reiterated that the impoundment of a passport must adhere to principles of natural justice and cannot be used arbitrarily.
During the pendency of the appeal, Vishal Shah filed an application under Article 142 of the Constitution, seeking the dissolution of his marriage on the grounds of its irretrievable breakdown. The Court, relying on Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan (2023), reaffirmed its power to dissolve a marriage under Article 142 if the spouses had lived separately for a long duration, there was no chance of reconciliation, and the continuation of the legal relationship served no purpose.
The Court noted that the couple had not lived together for nearly seven years, multiple litigations indicated deep-seated animosity, and mediation attempts had failed. Consequently, the Court exercised its extraordinary jurisdiction to dissolve the marriage, emphasizing that forcing a dead marriage to continue would be unjust.
To ensure a fair resolution, the Court directed Vishal Shah to pay a one-time permanent alimony of Rs. 25 lakhs to Monalisha. It also ordered that all pending criminal and civil cases between the parties and their family members be quashed. The ruling sets a precedent that extradition proceedings should not be initiated in purely matrimonial disputes, particularly when the accused is unable to return due to official restrictions like passport impoundment.
The judgment also reinforces the Court’s power to dissolve marriages in cases of irretrievable breakdown, even in the absence of a statutory provision. Furthermore, it reaffirmed the importance of adhering to principles of natural justice in passport impoundment cases.
47. Resultantly, we conclude as below: -
a. The judgments/orders dated 15th September,2022 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate,
Howrah and 25th January, 2023 passed by the High Court are quashed and set aside.
b. The application filed by the appellanthusband, under Article 142(1) of the Constitution
of India, is allowed and the marriage between the appellant and the respondent is dissolved on the
ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage. The Registry to draw a decree accordingly.
c. Consequently, all the criminal cases/DV Act complaints and civil cases pending between the respondent and the appellant and his family members shall stand closed.
d. The appellant shall deposit a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty-Five Lakhs only) in the Registry of this Court as the amount of permanent alimony payable to the respondent within two months from today. This amount shal be disbursed to the respondent within a period of two weeks thereafter. An undertaking to that effect shall be filed before this Court within two weeks from today. We also make it clear that if the respondent refuses to accept the aforesaid amount and fails to draw the same from the Registry within the aforesaid period, the same shall be repaid to the appellant.
e. The passport of the appellant shall be released by the authorities concerned within a period of one week from today.
The Vishal Shah judgment underscores the Supreme Court’s commitment to ensuring justice in complex matrimonial disputes while preventing the misuse of legal provisions for harassment. By setting aside the extradition order, dissolving the marriage, and granting fair alimony, the Court has reaffirmed its role as the guardian of fundamental rights and equitable justice.
Comments