Kiran Raj

The Supreme Court of India Division Bench of Chief Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih held that all pending criminal and civil litigations between two estranged spouses and their respective families are to be quashed in view of a comprehensive settlement between the parties. The Court directed the dissolution of their marriage by invoking Article 142 of the Constitution of India and recorded a binding undertaking from both sides, explicitly prohibiting the initiation of future litigations arising from the same disputes. The Court further ordered the publication of a formal apology from the wife, currently serving as an IPS officer, and detailed the terms of custody, property transfer, and visitation rights.

The petitioner-wife and the respondent-husband were married on 5 December 2015 at Umrao Farmhouse, Delhi, in accordance with Hindu rites. A daughter was born from the marriage on 23 December 2016. Initially residing with the husband's family at Kapil Vihar, Pitampura, the couple shifted to Rajdhani Enclave, Pitampura in April 2017. Matrimonial discord led to their separation on 4 October 2018. Following this, a series of criminal, civil, and matrimonial proceedings were initiated by both parties in various courts.

Also Read: Supreme Court Upholds Victim’s Right To Appeal Acquittal | Proviso To Section 372 CrPC Is A Standalone Provision Not Controlled By Section 378

The wife sought transfer of HMA No. 1395/2020, filed by the husband in the Family Court, Rohini, Delhi, to Hapur, Uttar Pradesh. Conversely, the husband requested transfer of several proceedings instituted by the wife in Hapur, including ST 19/2020 (arising from FIR No. 567/2018 at PS Pilakhwa), CC No. 248/2019 under the Domestic Violence Act, and Complaint No. 3692/2020 under Section 406 IPC, to Delhi. Both transfer petitions were heard together by the Supreme Court.

The wife had filed multiple cases against the husband and his family members, including:

1. A criminal trial in Hapur under multiple IPC provisions (including Sections 498A, 376, 377, 313, and 307 IPC) and Dowry Prohibition Act Sections 3 and 4;

2. Domestic violence complaints under Sections 12 of the DV Act before various magistrate courts in Hapur;

3. A criminal breach of trust complaint under Section 406 IPC pending before the CJM, Hapur;

4. Maintenance proceedings under Section 125 CrPC;

5. A divorce petition under Section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act;

6. Special Leave Petitions (SLPs) before the Supreme Court challenging orders passed by the Allahabad High Court quashing proceedings against her in-laws;

7. A petition before the Delhi High Court seeking quashing of FIR No. 816/2021 filed by the husband;

8. Notices issued under the Income Tax Act to various members of the husband’s family.

The husband had also initiated multiple proceedings including:

1. FIRs at PS Subhash Place, Delhi, against the wife and her family members under Sections 365, 323, 341, 506, 354, 385, 509, IPC;

2. A criminal complaint for defamation under Sections 500 and 501 IPC before the CJM, Rohini;

3. Divorce petition under Section 13(1) HMA;

4. A writ petition before the Delhi High Court challenging the IPS candidature of the wife;

5. A guardianship petition under the Guardianship and Wards Act seeking custody of the minor daughter;

6. A transfer petition seeking relocation of multiple proceedings from Hapur to Delhi;

7. An SLP challenging the Allahabad High Court’s refusal to revise certain orders;

8. A civil SLP challenging a maintenance order passed by the High Court.

In addition to the above, third-party litigations and complaints emerged out of the matrimonial discord. These included:

• Complaints filed under the SC/ST Act at PS Hapur Nagar;

• A defamation case filed by Satish Kumar Mittal against members of the husband’s family;

• Civil disputes related to property between the wife’s mother, Sandhya Goel, and SBM Developers Pvt. Ltd. pending before the Civil Judge and District Court, Aligarh.

The parties, represented by Senior Advocates Mr. Sidharth Luthra and Mr. Vikas Singh, submitted before the Court that they wished to amicably resolve all disputes, including matters of child custody and property transfer, and sought an overall settlement under Article 142.

"Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as also the submissions advanced the ends of justice will be served by making the following observations and directions."

The Court recorded that since the parties' separation in October 2018, the minor daughter had been under the mother's care. It noted: "It is hereby ordered that the mother shall have the custody of the child. The father... shall have supervised visitation rights... on the first Sunday of every month... from 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM... They shall have the right to spend half of the child’s vacations period with the child."

Regarding maintenance, the Court observed: "The Wife has voluntarily agreed to forgo and waive her claim to any alimony or maintenance... She shall have no claim over any moveable and immoveable property owned and possessed by the husband and his family members..."

The Court quashed an earlier maintenance order stating: "The order of maintenance of Rs. 1,50,000/- per month as passed by the High Court of Allahabad... shall not be executed by the wife and is hereby quashed."

On the issue of litigation closure: "All pending criminal and civil litigations filed by either party against the other... are hereby quashed and/or withdrawn... The respective courts/authorities are directed to treat these proceedings as terminated."

The Court took note of the property matter involving the wife’s mother and ordered transfer: "Shivangi Bansal’s mother i.e., Smt. Sandhya Goel shall transfer property situated at Mauza Tappal... to the husband Sahib Bansal... on as is where is basis... Sahib Bansal shall step into the shoes of Mrs. Sandhya Goel..."

Regarding apology and conduct, the Court recorded: "Shivangi Bansal/Shivangi Goel and her parents shall tender an unconditional apology to the husband and his Family members... published in the national edition of... one English and one Hindi newspaper... and on all social media platforms... The expression of apology herein shall not be construed as an admission of liability."

It further noted: "Neither party shall... publish, repeat, disseminate or report any statement or comment... that would negatively comment on... or call into question the contents of the present order..."

"Any breach of the said condition shall be considered as Contempt of this Hon'ble Court."

The Court directed that both sides and their families must not interfere in each other’s personal and professional lives: "They further agreed and undertook not to do any act or promote or cause any act to be done which may be detrimental to each other’s personal and professional interests directly or indirectly..."

Finally, the Court invoked its powers under Article 142: "In terms of the above 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 Shivangi Bansal/Shivangi Goel and Sahib Bansal."

The Supreme Court directed that the marriage be dissolved by invoking its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution. It ordered that the custody of the minor child remain with the mother and granted supervised visitation rights to the father, including access during school vacations.

The Court quashed the maintenance order passed by the High Court of Allahabad, as the wife voluntarily undertook to bear the child’s expenses without seeking any maintenance. It directed the parties to ensure no hindrance in child visitation and ordered appointment of counsels Mr. Sudarshan Rajan and Mr. Sanjeet Trivedi to mediate any issues regarding visitation.

All civil and criminal proceedings between the parties and their families were quashed. Courts and authorities across jurisdictions were directed to treat the proceedings listed in the judgment as terminated. Both sides undertook not to initiate any future litigation related to the matrimonial discord.

The mother of the wife, was ordered to transfer specific agricultural property in Aligarh district to the husband. The husband would bear the cost of the transfer and step into the ongoing civil litigations relating to that property.

The Court directed the wife and her parents to publish an unconditional apology in one English and one Hindi national newspaper and on social media platforms, as per the specific format provided in the judgment. This apology was not to be treated as an admission of liability.

Also Read: Reservation In PSU Contracts For SC/ST Contractors Does Not Violate Article 14 | Bombay High Court Upholds BPCL Tender Policy As Affirmative Action Under Article 46

Police protection was ordered for the husband and his family. The wife was directed not to misuse her position as an IPS officer against the husband or his family.

The Court expunged remarks made against the wife in a prior judgment dated 13 June 2022 passed by the Allahabad High Court in Criminal Revision No. 1126 of 2022.

The judgment concluded with a warning that any breach of the undertakings would amount to contempt and allowed liberty to the aggrieved party to approach the Supreme Court directly in such cases.

Case Title: Shivangi Bansal v. Sahib Bansal

Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 883

Case Number: Transfer Petition (C) No. 2367 of 2023 with TP (Crl.) No. 631-633/2023 and connected matters

Bench: Chief Justice B.R. Gavai, Justice Augustine George Masih