CASE ANALYSIS - Shivangi Bansal v. Sahib Bansal & Connected Matters
(Transfer Petition (C) No. 2367 of 2023 & Batch)
By Advocate Avichal Pandey, Allahabad High Court
Court - Supreme Court of India
Coram
●Hon’ble Chief Justice B.R. Gavai
●Hon’ble Justice Augustine George Masih
Date of Judgment - 22 July 2025
1. Introduction
The present judgment constitutes a significant exercise of the plenary powers of the Supreme Court under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, wherein the Court not only adjudicated competing transfer petitions but also effectuated a comprehensive settlement between the parties, thereby bringing an end to an extraordinarily protracted and multifaceted matrimonial dispute involving civil, criminal, and collateral proceedings across jurisdictions.
2. Factual Matrix
The matrimonial alliance between the parties was solemnized on 05.12.2015, out of which a minor daughter was born. Due to irreconcilable differences, the parties separated on 04.10.2018.
Thereafter, an extensive series of litigations ensued, including:-
●Multiple criminal proceedings under Sections 498A, 406 IPC and other serious penal provisions.
●Proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act.
●Maintenance proceedings under Section 125 CrPC.
●Divorce petitions under the Hindu Marriage Act.
●Cross FIRs and complaints by both parties and their relatives.
●Collateral civil and criminal litigations involving third parties.
The multiplicity of proceedings led to a complex web of litigation spanning Delhi, Uttar Pradesh, and other jurisdictions.
3. Issues Before the Court
1. Whether the transfer petitions filed by both parties deserved to be allowed.
2. Whether the pending criminal and civil proceedings between the parties could be resolved comprehensively.
3. Whether the Supreme Court should invoke its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 142 to do complete justice.
4. Determination of custody, maintenance, and future rights of the parties.
4. Submissions of the Parties
Both parties, through their respective senior counsels, submitted that they were willing to amicably resolve all disputes and sought a comprehensive settlement to avoid further litigation.
The settlement encompassed:-
●Custody and visitation rights of the minor child
●Waiver of maintenance and alimony,
●Withdrawal/quashing of all pending litigations
●Undertakings to not initiate future proceedings.
5. Findings and Reasoning of the Court
5.1 Custody of Minor Child
The Court, considering the welfare of the child as paramount, granted custody to the mother while ensuring structured visitation rights to the father, including supervised visitation initially and subsequent periodic access.
5.2 Waiver of Maintenance
The Court recorded the voluntary waiver by the wife of all claims of maintenance and alimony, including maintenance for the minor child. Consequently, the earlier maintenance order of ₹1,50,000 per month was quashed.
5.3 Comprehensive Quashing of Proceedings
In a sweeping exercise of power, the Court quashed:-
●All civil and criminal proceedings between the parties.
●Proceedings involving their family members.
●Even incidental third-party litigations connected to the matrimonial dispute.
This reflects a rare instance where the Court extinguished an entire litigation ecosystem arising from matrimonial discord.
5.4 Undertakings and Future Conduct
The Court imposed stringent undertakings:-
●No future litigation between the parties.
●No interference in each other’s personal and professional lives.
●Withdrawal of all allegations and defamatory content, including from social media platforms.
5.5 Expunction of Adverse Remarks
The Court expunged adverse observations made by the Allahabad High Court against the wife, thereby restoring her professional and reputational standing.
5.6 Property Transfer Arrangement
A unique feature of the judgment is the direction for transfer of immovable property by the wife’s mother to the husband as part of the settlement, indicating a negotiated financial closure beyond conventional alimony structures.
5.7 Direction for Apology
The Court mandated a formal public apology by the wife and her family, to be published in newspapers and social media, as a measure of restorative justice while clarifying that such apology shall not be treated as admission of liability.
5.8 Invocation of Article 142
Invoking Article 142, the Court:-
●Dissolved the marriage.
●Enforced the settlement terms.
●Ensured finality of all disputes.
This underscores the Court’s commitment to “complete justice” beyond procedural constraints.
6. Legal Principles Emanating
1. Expansive Scope of Article 142
The judgment reaffirms that the Supreme Court can transcend statutory limitations to ensure complete justice, including quashing non-compoundable offences in matrimonial disputes.
2. Finality Through Comprehensive Settlement
Courts may adopt a holistic approach in matrimonial disputes involving multiple proceedings to prevent abuse of process and multiplicity of litigation.
3. Primacy of Child Welfare
Custody arrangements must prioritize the emotional and psychological well-being of the child over adversarial claims.
4. Binding Nature of Undertakings
Breach of settlement undertakings recorded by the Supreme Court may invite contempt proceedings.
5. Restorative Justice Mechanisms
The direction for public apology and deletion of defamatory content reflects an evolving jurisprudence incorporating restorative elements.
7. Critical Analysis
This judgment is a paradigm of judicial pragmatism. The Supreme Court recognized that conventional adjudication would only perpetuate hostility and instead opted for a settlement-driven resolution. The breadth of relief grantedranging from quashing criminal proceedings to regulating future conduct demonstrates an assertive use of constitutional powers.
However, certain aspects merit critical scrutiny:-
●The direction for public apology, though consensual, raises questions regarding enforceability and its intersection with personal dignity.
●The quashing of serious criminal allegations without trial, albeit with consent, may invite debate on the limits of compromise in criminal jurisprudence.
●The inclusion of third-party litigations within the ambit of quashing is an unusually wide exercise of power.
8. Conclusion
The judgment stands as a landmark in matrimonial jurisprudence, illustrating how the Supreme Court can effectively dismantle entrenched litigation through a structured settlement backed by constitutional authority. It reinforces the principle that in deeply fractured matrimonial disputes, justice lies not merely in adjudication but in ensuring closure, stability, and future peace between the parties.
Advocate Avichal Pandey is a practicing counsel before the Allahabad High Court and a legal expert in Constitutional, Criminal, Service, and Matrimonial Matters.
Post a Comment