2025 INSC 926
Non-Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Criminal Appeal No. 5277 of 2024
ANURAG VIJAYKUMAR GOEL
…APPELLANT
VERSUS
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR.
…RESPONDENTS
J U D G M E NT
K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.
Matrimonial acrimony has left the parties fighting in
courts for eight long years, after a brief conjugal life of one
year and nine months. The parties were both divorced once
and had attempted yet another experiment at marriage,
which too failed miserably. The appellant-husband asserts
that the 2nd respondent-wife (hereinafter referred to as the
respondent) got a fair settlement as alimony from the earlier
divorce; which, we find at the outset, is irrelevant in the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
NARENDRA PRASAD
adjudication of the present dispute. The appellant has an
Date: 2025.08.05
16:22:13 IST
Reason:
Page 1 of 22
Crl. A. No. 5277 of 2024
autistic child from the first marriage and the ownership of the
apartment he jointly owned with his first wife was released in
his favour in the best interest of the minor child. The parties
were residing in the said apartment, viz: A-52, Kalpataru
Habitat, Dr. S.S. Rao Road, Mumbai; which is one of the bone of
contentions in the dispute, when they became estranged.
2. The appellant asserts that it was due to irreconcilable
disputes resulting in constant harassment by the wife that he
left the apartment and moved to Faridabad to stay with his
parents and his differently abled child, also forsaking his
lucrative employment in a private bank. The respondent on
the other hand alleges continued intimidation and domestic
violence at the hands of the appellant after which he
abandoned her and left her high and dry without any means
to survive. Only in desperation, she brought her parents to
stay with her in the flat of the appellant; her matrimonial
home.
3. The disputes between the appellant and the respondent
resulted in a complaint Annexure P-3 filed inter-alia under
Page 2 of 22
Crl. A. No. 5277 of 2024
Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity,
‘I.P.C.’) leading to registration of an F.I.R. which resulted in the
launch of a criminal prosecution, to set aside which the
appellant approached the High Court. The Order declining
revisional jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Criminal
Procedure Code, 1973 (for brevity, ‘Cr.P.C.) has led to the
present appeal. In the meanwhile, the respondent initiated a
criminal prosecution under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005
against the appellant and his parents in May 2017, in which
month itself the appellant filed a petition for divorce in the
jurisdictional Court at Delhi. The Family Court, Saket, New
Delhi before which the application for divorce was pending
referred the matter for mediation to the Principal Counsellor.
A settlement agreement was reached, which is annexed
herewith as Annexure P-10, signed by both the parties on
01.09.2022.
4. The first motion dated 03.09.2022 for divorce on mutual
consent under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
was moved by both the parties along with settlement entered
Page 3 of 22
Crl. A. No. 5277 of 2024
into between them, which was recorded by the Family Court
on 14.09.2022. But before the second motion, the respondent-
wife resiled from the agreement which prompted the
appellant to approach the High Court of Bombay for quashing
the criminal proceedings pending before the Metropolitan
Magistrate, 15th Court at Sewree, Mumbai arising out of CR
No.63 of 2018 dated 19.04.2018. The principal ground raised
before the High Court was the appellant’s withdrawal from the
divorce on mutual consent, which according to the appellant
justified the quashing of the criminal proceedings. The
appellant also moved the High Court of Delhi alleging
contempt insofar as withdrawing from the consent and
refusing to follow it up on the second motion before the Family
Court. A learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court
punished the respondent for contempt which order was set
aside by the Division Bench on an appeal filed by the
respondent.
5. We heard learned Senior Counsel, Smt. Madhavi Diwan
for the appellant and the respondent who appeared in person
Page 4 of 22
Crl. A. No. 5277 of 2024
before us.
6. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant
pointed out that the respondent had acted as per the
settlement and then resiled from it without reasonable cause;
obviously with the intention to coerce the appellant into a
better settlement. The appellant, due to the marital discord,
resigned his job to join his aged parents, who were unable to
look after his autistic child. As of now he does not have the
financial capacity he had when he was employed. The
appellant is still ready to act in accordance with the terms of
the settlement and convey the prime property; viz: the
apartment he owns in Bombay which by any reasonable
estimate would be valued at Rs.4 crores or in the alternative,
is ready to pay Rs.4 crores to the appellant who should then
vacate the premises. It is pointed out that along with the
apartment he owns two parking spaces in the apartment
complex, which also has the potential to generate income;
which would be conveyed along with the apartment to the
respondent. The appellant also gives up the claim as against
Page 5 of 22
Crl. A. No. 5277 of 2024
the two cars in his name, now in the custody of the respondent.
7. The respondent, however, is not agreeable to the offer
made by the appellant and vehemently opposes each and
every contention raised by the learned Senior Counsel. It is
pointed out that the respondent does not have a job and the
appellant is still lucratively employed. It is asserted from a
LinkedIn profile, that the appellant continues in his earlier
position with the Citi Bank and refers to the income tax returns
filed in proof of the income of the appellant. It is also
contended that the appellant has immovable properties worth
crores and is running two businesses which generate
sufficient income, while the respondent is in penury unable to
raise funds for her daily upkeep. The respondent also relied
on the various observations made by two Division Benches,
one of the High Court of Bombay and the other of the High
Court of Delhi which clearly brings out the attempt made by
the appellant to coerce the respondent into following up with
the application for divorce on mutual consent. It is also
alleged that the agreement was entered into under coercion,
Page 6 of 22
Crl. A. No. 5277 of 2024
misrepresentation and fraud employed by the appellant on
the respondent.
8. The appellant has now moved an application for divorce
on mutual consent under Article 142 of the Constitution of
India based on the judgment of this Court in Shilpa Sailesh v.
Varun Sreenivasan1. The appellant pleads that the marriage
cannot be retrieved and it is best that the parties go their
respective ways and live a life of their choice. The appellant
is still agreeable to comply with the terms of the agreement.
The respondent submits that there are huge dues of
maintenance with respect to the apartment which puts the
respondent under threat of eviction. The respondent is not
agreeable to the earlier terms as per Annexure P10 and
prayed for permanent alimony of Rs.12 crores in addition to
the encumbrance-free ownership of the apartment.
9. We are convinced that there is absolutely no way by
which there can be a reconciliation between the parties and it
would be futile on our part to attempt that, any further; which
1
(2023) 14 SCC 231
Page 7 of 22
Crl. A. No. 5277 of 2024
persuades us to look into the facts coming out from the
records of the case. The marriage between the appellant and
the respondent was on 25.07.2015 and the first instance of a
complaint made by the respondent is Annexure P-2 dated
30.03.2017 which is a written complaint to the jurisdictional
police inter alia under Section 498-A of the I.P.C. The crime
was registered only as per Annexure P-3 on 19.04.2018. We
have looked at both Annexure P-2 and Annexure P-3 which
makes general allegations of abuse, threats, levelling of
allegations and accusations all relatable to marital disputes.
10. Surprisingly, Annexure P-3, which is a statement on
which the crime was registered on 19.04.2018 speaks of the
appellant having left Bombay for Faridabad, on the pretext of
his father and son having fallen ill, on 06.04.2017. It is also
stated that despite fervent pleas through e-mail to return, the
appellant alleged schizophrenia on the respondent, accused
her of having beat his son and also raised apprehension of her
poisoning him. Allegations and counter allegations apart we
perceive nothing more than ordinary marital squabbles,
Page 8 of 22
Crl. A. No. 5277 of 2024
skirmishes and bickerings blown out of proportion; often
leading to eternal strife, then estrangement and eventually
divorce, as has been the trajectory in this case too. The fact
remains that, in the statement to the police dated 19.04.2018
while the respondent speaks of the appellant having
abandoned her on 06.04.2017; even before that day, Ex.P2
complaint dated 30.03.2017 was made on similar allegations.
The additional reply filed to the application under Article 142
of the Constitution of India by the respondent also states that
the appellant started quarrelling frequently from 2016
onwards with the respondent and pursuant to a fight on
28.3.2017, she was abandoned on 06.04.2017. It is also
admitted that she had been informed of the appellant’s travel
to Faridabad to look after his father and son, while the
respondent was working at her office; establishing her gainful
employment at the time of separation. It is after an year on
19.4.2018 that the FIR was registered on the statement of the
appellant.
11. There were multiple proceedings pending against the
Page 9 of 22
Crl. A. No. 5277 of 2024
appellant filed by the respondent, when the appellant
approached the Family Court at Mumbai for divorce, in which
the mediation was held and there was a settlement entered
into at Annexure P10. Annexure P10 dated 01.09.2022 spelt
out the clear terms on which the parties decided to separate
by way of a legal divorce on mutual consent. It specifically
referred to the various proceedings between the parties
which were agreed to be withdrawn after passing of the final
decree of divorce. It was also agreed that no further civil or
criminal cases would be filed against each other. The
agreement required a deed to be executed and registered by
the appellant gifting the apartment in Mumbai to the
respondent; prior to which, the respondent also agreed to
clear the outstanding loan with a bank, wherein the apartment
was mortgaged. A demand draft of Rs.9,91,408.41, being the
dues in the outstanding loan, was handed over to the
appellant on 14.09.2022 itself, on which date the first motion
for divorce on mutual consent was moved before the Family
Court and recorded. The respondent had agreed to pay the
Page 10 of 22
Crl. A. No. 5277 of 2024
pending maintenance charges of the flat in which she was
residing with her parents upon which a deed was to be
drafted on mutual agreement gifting the property to the
respondent and registered.
12. In paragraph 47 of the additional reply, the respondent
has admitted that the maintenance due to the Society with
respect to the apartment was not paid but not as a dilatory
tactic and more because of the appellant having not provided
the scanned copies of the documents relating to the
apartment and her parents having fallen ill. It is also the
specific contention of the respondent that she had requested
the appellant to deposit the maintenance by way of an e-mail
and promised to reimburse it at the time of registration of the
flat. Though the e-mail has not been produced along with the
additional reply, the appellant has stated that, after a surgery
the father of the appellant had been discharged on
13.01.2023, as is evident from Annexure A33. This clearly
indicates that the respondent was willing to go ahead with the
settlement even as on that date. The respondent then turned
Page 11 of 22
Crl. A. No. 5277 of 2024
turtle to resile from the settlement on the ground that though
provision of residence was made, there was no provision
regarding future maintenance either on a monthly basis or a
lump sum amount towards permanent alimony; putting bare
the intention of the respondent in resiling from the agreement.
The conduct of the appellant also puts to peril her contention
that she was coerced into executing the settlement and the
allegation of misrepresentation and fraud are blandly raised
without any substantiation.
13. We have already found that the allegations in the
statement of 19.04.2018 based on which the crime was
registered against the appellant inter-alia under Section 498-
A are common-place, banal and vague, without any specific
instances mentioned and filed one year after the admitted
separation of the couple. The High Court in the impugned
order has rejected the contention of the appellant to quash the
criminal proceedings with respect to the agreement having
been resiled from, at the second motion. We cannot fault the
findings of the High Court that the ground raised of the
Page 12 of 22
Crl. A. No. 5277 of 2024
respondent-wife having withdrawn from her consent on the
second motion, is perfectly in exercise of the statutory right of
the respondent-wife. However, but for a casual reference to
the other grounds set out in the petition, the High Court has
not considered those at all. It was observed peremptorily that
the contrary statements of the witnesses should be tested in a
trial and there is no question of the veracity of the allegations
in the FIR or charge-sheet being considered, at this stage. This
cannot be upheld especially when the statement leading to
the charge-sheet does not have any grounds leading to an
allegation under Section 498-A of the IPC.
14. We have already held, but for marital squabbles blown
out of proportion there is nothing substantial in the
complainant leading to the registration of crime under
Section 498-A. Reference can be usefully made to the trite
principle for exercise of powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
from the oft quoted decision in State of Haryana v. Bhajan
Lal2. Suffice to refer to one of the grounds laid down by the
2 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335
Page 13 of 22
Crl. A. No. 5277 of 2024
Constitution Bench, but with a caveat that there cannot be any
precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelized and
inflexible guideline or rigid formulae :
“(1) Where the allegations made in the first
information report or the complaint, even if they
are taken at their face value and accepted in
their entirely do not prima facie constitute any
offence or make out a case against the accused.”
15. The respondent who appeared in person has
specifically taken us through the Division Bench order of the
High Court of Delhi which absolved her from the contempt
proceedings; especially the observation that the attempt of
initiating the contempt is only a coercion to participate in the
second motion for divorce. It was also found that an affidavit
of undertaking recorded at the first motion would crystallise
into an undertaking only if the terms are agreed upon and
divorce is consented to by both the parties at the second
motion. We are quite in agreement with the finding regarding
the second motion, as already observed. But on the question
Page 14 of 22
Crl. A. No. 5277 of 2024
of the maintainability of contempt proceedings, we need not
say anything further, since it has been informed across the Bar
that there is an SLP filed from the said order and that in the
event of closure of all proceedings under Article 142, the
appellant would not pursue the same.
16. The facts as detailed by us herein above and the
acrimonious relations between the parties for the last 8 years
without any let-up and the multiple legal proceedings
pending, clearly indicate that the relationship has
irretrievably broken down. We are convinced that the
invocation of Article 142 is imperative in the above case to do
complete justice to both the parties, on being satisfied that the
marriage has been rendered totally unworkable, emotionally
dead and beyond salvation as held in Shilpa Sailesh1. What
remains is only the terms on which the parties could go their
separate ways to live their lives independently, without the
yoke of a troubled marriage. The terms of the settlement
agreed upon according to us, does justice to the estranged
wife and does not unduly burden the husband.
Page 15 of 22
Crl. A. No. 5277 of 2024
17. As we noticed at the outset the alimony received by the
respondent on the dissolution of her first marriage is not a
relevant consideration. But the appellant’s responsibility to
look after an autistic child and his current financial status are
relevant considerations. The apartment bearing No.A-52,
Kalpataru Habitat, Dr. S.S. Rao Road, Mumbai is a very
valuable asset, along with the two car parking areas. The gift
of the said property by the appellant to the respondent would
reasonably take care of the respondent-wife even after
divorce. The respondent-wife is also a graduate Engineer with
a Post-Graduate qualification in Management and was
admittedly working, even at the time of the estrangement;
termed as abandonment by the respondent.
18. As far as permanent alimony is concerned the
respondent had no such claim when entering into a
settlement. In fact, coercion, misrepresentation and fraud
were alleged by the appellant, which we found to be
unsubstantiated and remain in the realm of bland allegations.
The respondent had even at the time of recording of the first
Page 16 of 22
Crl. A. No. 5277 of 2024
motion transferred an amount of about Rs.10 lacs by way of
demand draft to the appellant for settling the loan in which the
apartment was mortgaged. The appellant had settled the loan
and has also released the mortgage. The respondent’s
contention before the High Court of Delhi was that the
maintenance charges regarding the apartment have not been
paid to the Society and she is under threat of eviction; which
she repeated before us. The respondent had taken upon
herself the responsibility of paying the maintenance charges,
obviously since she was having possession & enjoyment of the
apartment after the estrangement of the couple, wherein she
is residing, even now, along with her parents.
19. We see from the order of the High Court of Delhi that as
on 25.01.2025, there was a total due of Rs.25,90,701/- to the
Society being the maintenance charges. The appellant who
was present before us in-person has agreed to pay up the
entire maintenance charges as on date.
20. Further claim of alimony is not justified, especially
looking at the appellant’s status which as of now is of an
Page 17 of 22
Crl. A. No. 5277 of 2024
unemployed person. We have seen the Income Tax Returns of
the appellant as submitted by the respondent in her
additional reply to the application under Article 142 which is
produced in the additional reply at Annexure A10. It clearly
indicates that the income of the appellant in 2013-2014 and
2015-2016were respectively Rs.2,54,60,137/- and
Rs.2,46,28,969/- when he was employed with Citi Bank. In the
year 2018-2019, this has come down to Rs.50,34,120/- and in
2021-22 Rs.17,73,630/-. We find absolutely no reason to
disbelieve the appellant’s contention that he is no more in
employment with Citi Bank. We refuse to place any reliance
on the ‘LinkedIn’ profile as produced at Annexure A11 along
with the additional reply. We also reckon the fact that the
respondent-wife was gainfully employed and has the
educational qualifications as also the potential, by way of her
past experience in the field of information technology, to
maintain herself. The gift of the encumbrance free apartment
would suffice insofar as the compensation for separation. We
are quite conscious of the fact that the first wife of the
Page 18 of 22
Crl. A. No. 5277 of 2024
appellant had released her half share in the apartment to the
appellant, in the best interest of their minor child, who is still
a minor and is also differently abled. We are convinced that it
is also in the minor’s best interest that the gift is made of the
property by his father to the second wife so as to effectuate
the divorce on mutual consent.
21. We hence quash the criminal proceedings initiated as
CC No.136/PW/2018 pending before the Metropolitan
Magistrate, 15th Court at Sewree Mumbai for offence
punishable under Section 498-A, 406 r/w Section 34 of the IPC.
We also allow the application filed under Article 142 of the
Constitution of India dissolving the marriage between the
appellant and the second respondent finding the marriage to
have irretrievably broken down, in the best interest of both
the parties and for doing complete justice, but subject to the
following terms:
I) The appellant shall deposit the entire arrears to
the Society as on today and upto 1st September, 2025,
with the Society as the maintenance charges for the
Page 19 of 22
Crl. A. No. 5277 of 2024
apartment namely A-52, Kalpataru Habitat, Dr. S.S. Rao
Road, Mumbai, alongwith the two car parking areas
upon which the Society shall give a no-encumbrance
certificate to the appellant as also issue the ownership
certificate in his name.
II) Along with the above documents the appellant
shall execute a gift deed on or before 30.08.2025 on
any date informed by written notice; by the appellant
to the respondent, with due acknowledgment taken.
III) We have seen from the records that the draft of the
deed was exchanged between the parties and both the
appellant and the respondent No.2 shall be present
before the jurisdictional Registrar for execution and
registration on the date notified.
IV) If the respondent No.2 does not turn up on the said
date, the jurisdictional Registrar shall acknowledge
and record the presence of the appellant and in that
event the appellant and the respondent shall be
Page 20 of 22
Crl. A. No. 5277 of 2024
present on 15.09.2025 before the Registrar for
execution of the deed.
V) If the appellant does not comply with the above,
then the order of divorce shall not come into effect.
However, if the respondent does not present herself on
the date notified by the appellant and on such failure
even on the date specified by us, the divorce shall
come into effect.
VI) All proceedings, civil and criminal, initiated by the
parties to the marriage now dissolved, in relation to or
arising out of such marriage, shall stand closed. There
shall also be no further proceedings, both civil and
criminal instituted, by the respective parties, on any
aspect arising out of in relation to the marriage.
22. The Criminal Appeal stands allowed along with the
application under Article 142 of the Constitution of India
dissolving the marriage between the appellant and the
second respondent on the ground of irretrievable break
Page 21 of 22
Crl. A. No. 5277 of 2024
down, subject to the terms and conditions specified above. All
proceedings pending between the parties shall stand closed
and there shall be no further proceedings initiated by either
parties, relatable to their marriage, which stands dissolved by
this judgment, on the terms and conditions being complied
with.
23. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.
………….……………………. J.
(B.R. GAVAI)
………….……………………. J.
(K. VINOD CHANDRAN)
………….……………………. J.
(N. V. ANJARIA)
NEW DELHI;
AUGUST 05, 2025.
Page 22 of 22
Crl. A. No. 5277 of 2024
