LegalFirms.in
LegalFirms.in Judgments · legalfirms.in/judgments/praveen-singh-ramakant-bhadauriya-vs-neelam-praveen-singh-bhadauriya-20190501/ · Printed 07 Nov 2026
Civil · Reportable judgment

Praveen Singh Ramakant Bhadauriya vs Neelam Praveen Singh Bhadauriya

Court
Supreme Court of India
Date
1 May 2019
Case No.
Civil Appeal No. 4541 of 2019
Result
Disposed
Bench
R. Banumathi, S. Abdul Nazeer
Citation
[2019] 7 S.C.R. 150 : 2019 INSC 615
Supreme Court Reports [2019] 7 S.C.R. 150 : 2019 INSC 615
Headnote

Constitution of India: Art. 142 – Invocation of power under – In the instant case, divorce petition was pending between the parties and they were living separately – Parties resolved to amicably settle the matter and filed separate application agreeing for dissolution of marriage by mutual consent – In the facts and circumstances of the case, by invoking power under Art. 142, the marriage of the appellant and respondent is dissolved – Appeal disposed of – Family law – Divorce – Compromise/Settlement.

As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.

Full Judgment Text

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by R. BANUMATHI, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 29.05.2013 passed by the High Court of Allahabad in Second Appeal No. 641 of 2013, in which the High Court has dismissed the appeal preferred by the appellant and thereby declining to dissolve the marriage. 3. The appellant and the respondent were married on 07.05.1998. A girl child was born out of the said wedlock and she is now aged about 18 years. Due to strained relationship, the parties are living separately. The appellant-husband has filed a suit for dissol
Full text available to subscribers
Subscribe to access complete judgment text, daily digests, and AI-powered legal research tools. For informational and research purposes only.
View Subscription Plans →
Annual plans from ₹1,599 + GST.

This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.

All SC judgments →