Legal Review and Analysis of Bhagyashree Bisi vs Animesh Padhee 2025 INSC 1464
Case Synopsis
Bhagyashree Bisi v. Animesh Padhee (2025 INSC 1464)
Synopsis : The Supreme Court, leveraging Article 142 of the Constitution, set aside a fault-based divorce decree (desertion) and dissolved the marriage by mutual consent, acknowledging the parties' agreement and the irretrievable breakdown, while ordering a one-time financial settlement.
1. Heading of the Judgment
Bhagyashree Bisi v. Animesh Padhee
Citation: 2025 INSC 1464
Decided on: December 18, 2025
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vikram Nath and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Mehta, Supreme Court of India.
2. Related Laws and Sections
The judgment involves the interpretation and application of the following legal provisions:
Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA) – Specifies grounds for divorce, including desertion.
Article 142 of the Constitution of India – Empowers the Supreme Court to pass any decree or order necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it.
3. Basic Judgment Details
Facts of the Case
The appellant-wife (Bhagyashree Bisi) and respondent-husband (Animesh Padhee) were married on December 14, 2014.
The wife, employed with Infosys, was based in the USA at the time of marriage. She returned to India in February 2017 and started cohabiting with the husband in Bangalore. Marital differences arose.
In 2021, the wife was deputed back to the USA. The husband alleged she had deserted the matrimonial home on the night of January 24-25, 2020, and had not returned.
The husband filed for divorce under Section 13 HMA on the ground of desertion in May 2022.
The wife contested, stating she left due to a hostile environment and the husband's monetary demands, and had transferred ₹3 lakhs to him on January 20, 2020. She argued her departure was not desertion but due to professional obligations and domestic strife.
The Family Court (August 2023) and the Orissa High Court (August 2024) granted the divorce decree on the ground of desertion.
The wife appealed to the Supreme Court.
Issues Before the Supreme Court
Whether the finding of desertion by the lower courts was legally sustainable?
Whether, in the facts and circumstances, the Supreme Court should intervene and dissolve the marriage by an alternative method?
Ratio Decidendi (Court's Reasoning)
The Supreme Court disposed of the appeal by setting aside the fault-based decree and granting divorce by consent under its extraordinary powers. The reasoning is structured as follows:
Concession by Both Parties: During the hearing, both parties, through their counsel, expressed their consent to the dissolution of the marriage. The wife objected only to the stigma of the "desertion" label but agreed to divorce. The husband had no objection to the Court exercising its powers under Article 142 for this purpose.
Finding of Irretrievable Breakdown: The Court noted the objective reality: the parties had been living separately for a "considerable length of time" (since early 2020), reconciliation efforts had failed, and both unequivocally desired to end the marriage. The Court concluded the marriage had irretrievably broken down.
Exercise of Power Under Article 142: To do "complete justice" and avoid the acrimony of litigating the contested ground of desertion, the Supreme Court invoked Article 142 of the Constitution. It set aside the divorce decree based on desertion and dissolved the marriage by the consent of the parties, treating it as a case of mutual agreement facilitated by the Court.
Determination of Permanent Alimony: Considering both parties were working professionals earning well, the Court ordered a one-time lump sum payment of ₹25,00,000 (Twenty-Five Lakh Rupees) by the husband to the wife as full and final settlement of all claims, including permanent alimony. This was to ensure finality.
4. Analysis: Core Principle of the Judgment
The Central Legal Problem
The judgment addresses a common dilemma in matrimonial appeals: where the factual matrix shows a clear breakdown of marriage and both parties are now willing to separate, but the lower courts' decree rests on a contested, fault-based ground that one party wishes to challenge.
The Supreme Court's Resolution – The Core Principle:
When confronted with a scenario where a marriage has undeniably broken down and both parties, at the appellate stage before the Supreme Court, expressly consent to its dissolution, the Court can sidestep the contentious adjudication of specific fault grounds (like desertion). By invoking Article 142 of the Constitution, it can set aside the contested decree and dissolve the marriage based on the parties' consent and the fact of irretrievable breakdown, thereby achieving a clean, consensual, and stigma-free resolution in the interest of complete justice.
This approach prioritizes pragmatism and the settled intent of the parties over a protracted legal battle about past faults. It underscores Article 142 as a tool for equitable resolution, allowing the Court to craft a remedy that the statute (HMA) does not directly provide in that specific procedural context (i.e., converting a contested divorce appeal into a consensual dissolution).
5. Final Outcome and Directions
The Supreme Court disposed of the appeal.
The impugned order of the High Court and the decree of the Family Court based on desertion were set aside.
In exercise of powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, the marriage between the parties was dissolved by the consent of the parties.
The dissolution was made subject to the condition that the respondent-husband pays a sum of ₹25,00,000 (Twenty-Five Lakh Rupees) to the appellant-wife as a full and final settlement within two months, to be deposited with the Supreme Court Registry.
Upon proof of payment, a decree of divorce shall be drawn.
All pending civil or criminal proceedings between the parties arising from the matrimonial dispute were ordered to be closed.
6. MCQs Based on the Judgment
Question 1: In Bhagyashree Bisi v. Animesh Padhee, the Supreme Court dissolved the marriage primarily based on?
A. A proven finding of desertion by the wife.
B. The husband's proven allegations of cruelty.
C. The mutual consent of the parties expressed before the Court, invoking Article 142.
D. The wife's admission of desertion.
Question 2: What was the key reason the Supreme Court set aside the divorce decree granted by the lower courts on the ground of desertion?
A. The lower courts had misinterpreted the evidence on desertion.
B. The husband withdrew his allegation of desertion.
C. Both parties consented to divorce, and the Court opted for a consensual dissolution under Article 142 to avoid the stigma of a fault-based decree.
D. The Court found that the wife had not actually deserted the husband.
Blog Posts
