Rinku Baheti v. Sandesh Sharda

Jurisdiction:
Supreme Court of India

Citation:
Transfer Petition (Civil) No. 278 of 2023
Decided on: 19 December 2024

Bench:
Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice N.K. Singh

Area of Law:
Family Law – Divorce, Transfer of Proceedings, Misuse of Criminal Provisions

Statutes Involved:

• Article 142(1), Constitution of India
• Section 13(1)(ia), Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
• Section 25, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
• Sections 498A, 376, 377, 506, Indian Penal Code, 1860

FACTS

1. The petitioner, Rinku Baheti, and the respondent, Sandesh Sharda, entered into matrimony on 31 July 2021 in Pune, Maharashtra. Both individuals had previously been married and divorced. The respondent, a U.S.-based IT consultant, had two children from his earlier marriage. The petitioner, a postgraduate in Finance who follows natural methods of healing (Naturopathy), alleged that the respondent had hidden the fact that he was still emotionally and financially involved with his earlier family, including his ex-wife and children.”
2. Soon after the marriage, disputes began to surface between the parties. The petitioner raised concerns over the respondent’s continued involvement with his former family, particularly his ex-wife, children, and ailing father. She claimed that this ongoing attachment disrupted the marital relationship and amounted to emotional neglect. As tensions escalated, the petitioner filed multiple criminal complaints against the respondent under Sections 498A, 376, and 377 of the Indian Penal Code, along with Section 66E of the Information Technology Act, alleging cruelty and violation of privacy (The offences mentioned under IPC are now covered under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023)”.
3. In response to these allegations and the breakdown of the relationship, the respondent initiated divorce proceedings. He filed three separate petitions—first under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights, second under Section 13(1)(ib) citing desertion, and third under Section 13(1)(ia) alleging cruelty inflicted by the petitioner. The respondent contended that the marriage had irretrievably broken down and that reconciliation was no longer possible.
4. The petitioner, while opposing the divorce, demanded ₹500 crore as permanent alimony, citing emotional trauma, reputational damage, and breach of marital trust. She also filed a transfer petition under Section 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking to move the divorce proceedings from Bhopal to Pune, citing safety concerns and logistical difficulty.
5. The Supreme Court was called upon to adjudicate the transfer petition and to determine whether the marriage could be dissolved under Article 142 of the Constitution on the ground of irretrievable breakdown, and whether the petitioner’s claim for alimony was legally sustainable.

ISSUES RAISED

1. Whether the Supreme Court can dissolve a marriage under Article 142 on the ground of irretrievable breakdown, even without mutual consent.
2. Whether the petitioner’s demand of ₹500 crore as permanent alimony is legally tenable and proportionate.
3. Whether the transfer of the divorce petition from Bhopal to Pune is justified on grounds of safety and convenience.
4. Whether the criminal complaints filed by the petitioner amount to cruelty or misuse of legal provisions.

CONTENTION

Petitioner’s Side (Rinku Baheti)

1. The respondent concealed his ongoing emotional and financial involvement with his previous family, including his ex-wife and children, which amounts to breach of marital trust.
2. The respondent’s continued attachment to his former family disrupted the marital relationship and caused emotional neglect.
3. The criminal complaints filed under Sections 498A, 376, 377 IPC and Section 66E IT Act were based on genuine grievances and lawful exercise of rights.
4. The petitioner opposes the divorce and contends that dissolution without mutual consent under Article 142 is unjust and sets a harmful precedent.
5. The demand of ₹500 crore as permanent alimony is proportionate to the emotional trauma, reputational damage, and the respondent’s financial capacity.
6. The transfer of divorce proceedings from Bhopal to Pune is necessary due to safety concerns and logistical hardship, as the petitioner resides in Pune.

Respondent’s Side (Sandesh Sharda)

1. The marriage has irretrievably broken down and reconciliation is no longer possible; continuing the relationship serves no constructive purpose.
2. The respondent filed divorce petitions under Sections 9, 13(1)(ib), and 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, citing desertion and cruelty.
3. The criminal complaints filed by the petitioner are retaliatory, exaggerated, and amount to mental cruelty and misuse of protective legal provisions.
4. The Supreme Court is empowered under Article 142 to dissolve the marriage in exceptional circumstances, even without mutual consent.
5. The demand of ₹500 crore is excessive and disproportionate to the short duration of the marriage; ₹12 crore is a reasonable settlement offer.
6. The petition was validly filed in Bhopal, and the petitioner’s apprehensions regarding safety are speculative and unsupported by concrete evidence.

RATIONALE

The Supreme Court decided to end the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent by using its special power under Article 142 of the Constitution. The Court felt that the relationship had broken down completely and there was no hope of the two living together again. It saw that both parties were involved in continuous fights and court cases, which showed that the marriage was not working at all.

To support this decision, the Court looked at its earlier judgment in Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan, Civil Appeal No. 544 of 2023, (India Sup. Ct. May 1, 2023), where it had allowed divorce even when one side did not agree, because the situation had become too bitter to continue. This judgment reaffirmed the Court’s power to do complete justice under Article 142, even in the absence of a statutory ground like irretrievable breakdown under the Hindu Marriage Act. In this case too, the Court noted that the marriage lasted only a few months and was full of arguments and legal complaints, which made it clear that things could not be fixed.

When it came to the money the petitioner had asked for, the Court said that ₹500 crore was too much and not suitable for this kind of case. It looked at how long the marriage lasted and what the respondent could afford, and then decided that ₹12 crore was a fair amount to give as permanent settlement.

On the matter of shifting the case from Bhopal to Pune, the Court said that just feeling unsafe or uncomfortable is not enough to change the location of a case. It did not find any strong proof that the petitioner was in danger or unable to attend hearings in Bhopal, so it refused to transfer the case.It refused to allow transfer under Section 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure, No. 5 of 1908, Section 25 (India), stating that mere discomfort or logistical difficulty is not sufficient ground without strong supporting evidence.

The Court also looked at the criminal complaints filed by the petitioner. It said that while the complaints were serious, there was not enough proof to support them. The Court felt that filing many cases without strong evidence could be a way to put pressure on the other side, and warned against using legal tools in this way during family disputes.

DEFECTS OF LAW

1. No clear provision for irretrievable breakdown of marriage

The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 does not include irretrievable breakdown as a ground for divorce. Because of this, couples who are stuck in dead marriages have to depend on the Supreme Court’s special powers under Article 142, which lower courts cannot use. This makes the process uneven and confusing for people who don’t reach the Supreme Court.

2. No fixed formula for deciding alimony

There is no proper rule or method in law to decide how much alimony should be given. People often ask for very high or very low amounts, and it leads to long fights. In this case, ₹500 crore was asked, but there was no rule to say what is fair.

3. Misuse of criminal law in family disputes

Sections like 498A, 376, and 377 IPC (now covered under BNS 2023) are serious, but sometimes they are used without strong proof, just to put pressure on the other side. This affects the person who is accused and also makes the law look weak.

4. No support for emotional and mental stress

The law talks about punishment and money, but it doesn’t help people deal with the emotional stress of divorce. There is no proper system for counselling or support during such cases.

INFERENCE

The Supreme Court dissolved the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent by exercising its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution. The Court observed that the relationship had broken down completely and that there was no possibility of reconciliation. It noted that both parties were involved in continuous litigation, including criminal complaints and transfer petitions, which reflected deep conflict and lack of trust. Since the Hindu Marriage Act does not include irretrievable breakdown as a ground for divorce, the Court relied on its earlier decision in Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan (2023 SCC Online SC 544) to justify granting relief without mutual consent.

The petitioner’s demand for ₹500 crore as alimony was rejected as disproportionate, and ₹12 crore was awarded based on the facts and financial position of the parties. The request to transfer the case from Bhopal to Pune was denied due to lack of strong evidence of threat or hardship.The Court refused to allow transfer under Section 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure, stating that mere discomfort or logistical difficulty is not sufficient ground without strong supporting evidence. The Court also found that the criminal complaints filed by the petitioner lacked sufficient proof and may have been used to increase pressure on the respondent. Overall, the judgment reflects a practical approach by the Court to resolve a deadlock, while also highlighting gaps in existing matrimonial law that need legislative attention.

Name:- Prahlad Prasad

University:- Jharkhand Rai University, Ranchi

Batch: 2023 to 2026

State:- Jharkhand