Bhagyashree Bisi v. Animesh Padhee
Civil Appeal No. … of 2025 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 25584 of 2024)
Factual and Procedural Background
The appellant-wife, Bhagyashree Bisi, and the respondent-husband, Animesh Padhee, were married on 14 December 2014 at Sambalpur, Odisha. At the time of marriage, the appellant was employed with Infosys and residing in the United States of America. In February 2017, she returned to India and thereafter commenced cohabitation with the respondent-husband in Bangalore, India. Subsequently, differences arose between the parties.
In 2021, the appellant-wife was deputed by her employer to the United States and accordingly travelled abroad. On 9 May 2022, the respondent-husband instituted C.P. Case No. 65 of 2022 before the Family Court, Sambalpur under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking dissolution of marriage on the ground of desertion. He averred that the appellant-wife had left the matrimonial home during the intervening night of 24–25 January 2020 and had not returned thereafter, thereby allegedly deserting him for a continuous period exceeding two years.
The appellant-wife contested the proceedings, asserting that she had left the matrimonial home on 19 January 2020 to visit her brother due to a hostile environment allegedly created by the respondent, including demands for money. She further stated that on 20 January 2020, she transferred a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- to the respondent-husband's account, and denied having deserted him.
By judgment and order dated 5 August 2023, the Family Court allowed the petition filed by the respondent-husband and dissolved the marriage by granting a decree of divorce on the ground of desertion. Aggrieved, the appellant-wife preferred an appeal before the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack in MATA No. 279 of 2023. By the impugned order dated 8 August 2024, the High Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Family Court’s findings and the decree of divorce.
The appellant-wife then approached the Supreme Court by way of the present civil appeal (arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 25584 of 2024). Leave was granted, and the Supreme Court heard both parties.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the decree of divorce granted by the Family Court on the ground of desertion and affirmed by the High Court should be sustained.
- In view of the parties’ subsequent stand before the Supreme Court, whether the marriage should instead be dissolved by mutual consent by exercise of the Court’s power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, and on what terms.
- What would be an appropriate arrangement towards permanent alimony and final settlement of all claims arising from the matrimonial relationship, and what should be the status of any pending civil or criminal proceedings between the parties arising out of the matrimonial dispute.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant-wife's Arguments
- The appellant-wife expressed her agreement to a decree of divorce by mutual consent.
- She contended that the decree of divorce ought not to rest on the ground of desertion because, according to her, she had not abandoned the respondent-husband.
- She asserted that her departure from India was on account of professional obligations and that she remained open to communication, thereby disputing the characterization of her conduct as “desertion.”
Respondent-husband's Arguments
- The respondent-husband, through counsel, stated that he was also agreeable to the marriage being dissolved by mutual consent.
- He raised no objection to the Supreme Court exercising its power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to dissolve the marriage, instead of sustaining the existing decree of divorce on the ground of desertion.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Supreme Court noted from the record that the parties had been living separately for a considerable length of time. Efforts at reconciliation had not yielded any positive outcome. Both parties had expressed, before the Court, an unequivocal desire to bring their marital relationship to an end.
On this basis, the Court concluded that the marriage had irretrievably broken down and that there remained no scope for restoration of the matrimonial bond. In light of this assessment, and taking into account that both parties consented to dissolution of the marriage and did not insist on sustaining the finding of desertion, the Court decided that it would not be appropriate to maintain the decree on the ground of desertion.
To “do complete justice between the parties,” the Court set aside the existing decree of divorce founded on desertion. In its place, and “as agreed,” the Court deemed it appropriate to dissolve the marriage by exercising its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India on the basis of the parties’ consent.
The Court then turned to the issue of permanent alimony and settlement of all claims arising from the matrimonial relationship. It recorded that both parties are working and earning well. To bring finality to all such claims, the Court considered it appropriate to adopt a one-time lump-sum payment as a token settlement.
Taking into account the “overall facts and circumstances of the case,” including the financial status of both parties as working professionals and “other attendant factors,” the Court determined that a sum of Rs. 25 lakhs would constitute a just and reasonable amount towards full and final settlement, including permanent alimony. The Court directed that this amount be paid within two months and deposited with the Registry of the Supreme Court within that period. The appellant-wife was held entitled to withdraw the amount.
The Court further directed that the Registry shall draw up a decree of divorce upon receipt of proof of payment of the aforesaid amount. It clarified that upon compliance with this direction, any pending civil or criminal proceedings between the parties arising out of the matrimonial dispute shall stand closed.
Holding and Implications
HOLDING: The Supreme Court set aside the existing decree of divorce on the ground of desertion and, exercising its power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, dissolved the marriage by mutual consent. It ordered that the respondent-husband shall pay a lump sum of Rs. 25 lakhs within two months as full and final settlement, including permanent alimony, by depositing the amount with the Registry of the Court, to be withdrawn by the appellant-wife. The Registry was directed to draw up a decree of divorce upon proof of payment. Upon such compliance, all pending civil or criminal proceedings between the parties arising out of the matrimonial dispute shall stand closed. The appeal and all pending applications were DISPOSED OF in these terms.
Implications: The decision finally terminates the marital relationship between the parties, substitutes a consensual dissolution under Article 142 for the earlier desertion-based decree, and provides a quantified one-time financial settlement as permanent alimony. It also brings an end to all related litigation between the parties. The judgment is marked “NON-REPORTABLE” and contains no discussion of broader legal principles beyond what was necessary to resolve this particular dispute.
Show full summary ...