Contempt of Court - The Legal Chamber

Marriage Dead: Supreme Court Dissolves Union, Quashes 498A Case in Landmark Irretrievable Breakdown Ruling

6Sep

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Marriage Dead: Supreme Court Dissolves Union, Quashes 498A Case in Landmark Irretrievable Breakdown Ruling

The Supreme Court, invoking its extraordinary power under Article 142 of the Constitution, dissolved the marriage on the ground of irretrievable breakdown. It quashed the pending criminal proceedings under Section 498-A IPC, finding the allegations to be vague and arising from marital discord, while upholding the terms of a settlement agreement for a clean break. Facts Of The Case: The marriage between Anurag Goel (appellant-husband) and the second respondent (wife) took place on July 25, 2015, following prior divorces for both. After approximately one year and nine months of conjugal life, the relationship soured. The husband alleged constant harassment, leading him to abandon the matrimonial home—a Mumbai apartment he owned—in April 2017 to move to Faridabad with his autistic child fro...

Supreme Court Rules: Rejecting Job Regularization on Multiple Grounds is Not Contempt of Court

The Supreme Court held that the authority's order, which rejected regularization claims on multiple fresh legal grounds—including qualifications and financial burden—constituted valid compliance with the High Court's direction. Since the rejection was not solely based on the prohibited "contract labour" ground, it could not be construed as wilful disobedience amounting to contempt of court. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from drivers engaged by the New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (NOIDA) seeking regularization of their services. Their initial representation was rejected by the NOIDA CEO in 2017 solely on the ground that they were intermittent workers hired through a contractor. This rejection was challenged and set aside by the Allahabad High Court in February 2020, wh...

Supreme Court Verdict on Delhi Ridge : DDA Must Pay for Environmental Damage in Delhi Ridge Case

The Supreme Court held the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) in contempt for wilfully disobeying its 1996 order prohibiting tree felling in the Delhi Ridge and for concealing this action from the court. The Court emphasized that such conduct obstructs the administration of justice and undermines the Rule of Law, necessitating remedial measures to purge the contempt. Facts Of The Case: This contempt petition before the Supreme Court of India stems from the Delhi Development Authority's (DDA) alleged wilful disobedience of the Court's 1996 order in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, which mandated the preservation of the ecologically sensitive Delhi Ridge. The DDA sought approval for constructing approach roads to the Central Armed Police Forces Institute of Medical Sciences (CAPFIMS), entailin...