Supreme Court allows man, estranged IPS wife to part ways
A Bench comprising Chief Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih further directed the woman IPS officer and her parents to tender an unconditional apology to the family of the estranged husband.
Supreme Court issues notices to Union and States on Presidential reference on President, Governor's powers
The Bench was exercising powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to bring the curtain down on their acrimonious and protracted legal battles after their marriage solemnised in 2015 went kaput in 2018.
Article 142 empowers the top court to issue any order necessary for "complete justice" in any matter pending before it.
'In terms of the …observations, directions and conditions/settlement, we deem it appropriate to invoke our power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India and order for dissolution of marriage between …. The decree of divorce shall be drawn up accordingly,' the top court said.
The Bench took note of the submissions of both the parties wanting to amicably resolve disputes, including matters of child custody, and settle all pending cases to avoid any future litigation and maintain peace between them.
Presidential Reference concerns all States, will answer all questions raised: Supreme Court
On the custody of their daughter, the Bench said, 'Mother shall have the custody of the child. The father…and his family shall have supervised visitation rights to meet the child for the first three months and thereafter based on the comfort and wellbeing of the minor girl child…, on the first Sunday of every month at the place of education of the child from 9 a.m. to to 5 p.m. or as permitted under the rules and regulations of the school.'
It also considered the fact that the woman has voluntarily agreed to forgo her claim to any alimony from the husband. The Bench, as a result, quashed the high court order of ₹1.5 lakh maintenance a month to the wife.
'To bring an end to the protracted legal battle between the parties and to secure complete justice, all pending criminal and civil litigations filed by either party against the other, including but not limited to those against the wife, the husband, and his family members, in any court or forum in India as mentioned in… are hereby quashed and/or withdrawn,' the top court ordered.
The Bench further quashed cases filed by third parties against them aside from those not in the knowledge of either parties. It also restrained the spouses from filing litigations in future arising out of present matters in any judicial or quasi-judicial or regulatory or administrative forum or any other forum.
The wife was directed to "never use her position and power as an IPS officer or any other position that she may hold in future, position and power of her colleagues/superiors or other acquaintances anywhere in the country, against the husband, his family members and relatives by way of initiating any proceedings before any authority or forum... in any manner whatsoever."
The Bench considered the fact that the husband and his father remained behind bars owing to the cases filed by the IPS wife and asked her and her parents to tender an unconditional apology. The apology was directed to be published in the national edition of a renowned English and Hindi daily.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
News18
17 minutes ago
- News18
Can govt appoint trustee of Banke Bihari temple, HC asks UP govt
Prayagraj (UP), Jul 23 (PTI) The Allahabad High Court has sought a reply from the Uttar Pradesh government on whether it can appoint its officials as trustees of the Banke Bihari temple in Mathura, a private temple, by the issuance of the Uttar Pradesh Shri Bankey Bihari Ji Temple Trust Ordinance, 2025. Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal, after hearing amicus curiae Sanjeev Goswami, fixed July 30 as the next date of hearing on a petition filed by Pranav Goswami and another. According to the amicus curiae, 'The temple is a private temple and the religious practice is being carried out by the heirs of the late Swami Hari Dasji. By the issuance of the ordinance, the government is trying to take control over the temple through the back door." The amicus curiae apprised the court that according to the ordinance, there would be two kinds of trustees of the board — nominated trustees and ex-officio trustees. The nominated trustees will be the seers, gurus, scholars, mathadhish and mahants etc. from the Vaishnav tradition as well as followers of the Sanatan Dharma. However, he raised strong objections as to the seven ex-officio trustees, who are officials like the district magistrate, the special superintendent of police and the municipal commissioner of Mathura, which he said would amount to a back-door entry by the state government in the private temple. 'The creation of such a trust amounts to intruding into the Hindu religion by the state government. The Constitution does not provide for the State to practise any religion and take control of any temple," the amicus curiae said. The court, in its order dated July 21, sought the state government's reply and observed, 'The matter requires consideration. Hearing to continue. Put up this case as fresh on July 30, 2025. By that time, the state government would respond to the argument which has been raised by the amicus curiae. PTI COR RAJ RC (This story has not been edited by News18 staff and is published from a syndicated news agency feed - PTI) view comments First Published: July 24, 2025, 01:15 IST Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
India Today
37 minutes ago
- India Today
Plea in Supreme Court seeks sacking of BJP minister over Col Qureshi remarks
A plea has been filed in the Supreme Court seeking the removal of Madhya Pradesh minister Vijay Shah for his remarks against Indian Army officer Col Sofiya petition filed by Congress leader Jaya Thakur said Shah's statement sparks separatist feelings and threatens country's unity."The statement of the minister that Col. Sofia Quraishi is the sister of the terrorist who carried out the attack at Pahalgam encourages feelings of separatist activities by imputing separatist feelings to anyone who is Muslim, which thereby endangers the sovereignty or unity and integrity of India. That speech directly violated the oath prescribed under schedule 3 of the Constitution of India," the plea The apex court on May 28 ordered closure of proceedings before the Madhya Pradesh High Court against Shah for his remarks, saying it would look into the asked for a status report from the special investigation team (SIT) constituted by the Madhya Pradesh government in compliance with the top court's earlier May 19, the top court chided Shah and constituted a three-member SIT to probe the FIR lodged against came under fire after a video, which was circulated widely, showed him allegedly making objectionable remarks against Col Qureshi, who gained nationwide prominence along with another woman officer, Wing Commander Vyomika Singh, during the media briefings on Operation Madhya Pradesh High Court rebuked Shah for passing "scurrilous" remarks and using "language of the gutters" against Col Qureshi, and ordered police to file an FIR against him on the charge of promoting enmity and drawing severe condemnation, Shah expressed regret and said that he respects Col Qureshi more than his sister.- EndsTune InMust Watch
The Hindu
37 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Secretly recorded conversations may be evidence, but erode spousal trust
In a landmark judgment in a divorce case (Vibhor Garg vs Neha), the Supreme Court has accepted the admissibility of secretly recorded conversations between a married couple as reliable evidence. Vibhor Garg had filed a divorce petition under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 in a family court at Bathinda in Punjab on the grounds of mental cruelty by his wife, Neha. The petitioner adduced conversations between him and his wife recorded by him over a period of time without her consent and knowledge to buttress his allegations of mental cruelty. The evidence was admitted by the family court. However, on appeal against its decision, the Punjab & Haryana High Court took an opposing view, holding the secretly recorded calls violative of the fundamental right to privacy as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution. Justice Lisa Gill held that the conversations were in clear breach of the privacy rights, and set aside the decision of the family court. Aggrieved by this decision, the petitioner approached the Supreme Court, which on July 14 ruled in favour of the husband by accepting the recorded conversations, though they were made without the consent and knowledge of the spouse. Complete lack of trust The Supreme Court Bench, comprising Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma, used the recorded conversations to conclude that the marriage in question had reached a point of a broken relationship, where one spouse was actively snooping on the other, denoting a complete lack of trust between them, the very bedrock of a marriage. In essence, the Supreme Court admitted the recorded conversations to decide on the broken marriage rather than as an absolute question of privacy laws. The court also relied on the exception provided in Section 122 of the Indian Evidence Act, which permits the disclosure of recorded marital communications in suits between married persons or proceedings in which one married person is prosecuted for any crime committed against the other. The Bench observed: 'We do not think there is any breach of privacy in this case. Section 122 of the Evidence Act does not recognise any such right. On the other hand, it carves out an exception to the right to privacy between spouses and therefore cannot be applied horizontally at all.' The Family Courts Act, 1984 grants a family court discretion to admit evidence, including reports, statements, documents, information, or other matters, that, in its opinion, will assist in effectively handling a dispute, even if that evidence might not meet the admissibility benchmark under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. This provision allows the family courts to consider a broader range of evidence, including recorded conversations, in deciding matrimonial disputes. The court recognised that instances of mental suffering were very private and recorded conversations assisted the family court in deciding the matter appropriately. It reaffirmed its commitment to a fair trial, an inalienable right provided by Article 21 of the Constitution. Important form of evidence Call recordings have become an important form of evidence in legal proceedings. The Information Technology Act, 2000 and the Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 are the primary laws related to electronic records and the admissibility of these records. The admissibility of call recordings in Indian courts has been a matter of debate and controversy for several years. The K.S. Puttaswamy judgment (2017) established privacy as a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution. However, the Supreme Court, in this case, has interpreted the right to privacy in the specific context of matrimonial discord, the exception provided in the Evidence Act, and the admissibility of relevant evidence in a family court proceeding to decide a case. The judgment reaffirms the admissibility of secretly recorded conversations, based on the precedent set in R.M. Malkani vs State of Maharashtra. The admissibility of recorded electronic evidence was also examined in S. Pratap Singh vs State of Punjab, in which the Supreme Court accepted an unauthorisedly obtained tape-recorded conversation between two parties. The court evaluated the evidentiary value of the tape-recorded conversation and accepted it as evidence only because it was essential to resolving the case. Some believe the judgment will promote spousal surveillance and abuse of privacy laws to be used against an unsuspecting partner in future. Research established that women are generally at the receiving end in a family or a live-in relationship. The male counterpart enjoys greater coercive control. Admission of recorded conversations between spouses will create a greater atmosphere of suspicion, a trust deficit, and an abuse of privacy laws. The admissibility of call recordings in Indian courts depends on several factors, including the authenticity, accuracy, and reliability of the recordings, the relevance and probative value of the recordings to the issue at hand, and the circumstances under which the recordings were made. As technology continues to evolve, the admissibility of electronic evidence, including call recordings, will likely remain a subject of judicial scrutiny and interpretation. The admissibility of electronic evidence, such as recorded telephone or mobile conversations and video clips, often raises concerns regarding the right to privacy. While electronic evidence is accepted in a court of law, it is not generally legal for individuals to record conversations without authorisation due to the violation of the right to privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution. However, in Vibhor Garg vs Neha, the Supreme Court has emphasised that the use of recorded conversations as evidence is admissible only in cases involving matrimonial or family discord. Only time will tell if the courts in India will be liberal in accepting such evidence in other cases also. (The writer is a former Director-General of Police, Himachal Pradesh; view are personal)
