Even Jurisdiction Under Article 226 Cannot Be Exercised: Allahabad HC Refuses To Dissolve Marriage Citing Lack Of Power Like Supreme Court Under Article 142

The case involved a marriage solemnized on May 23, 1980, which saw separation in 1992. The wife had initiated criminal proceedings against the husband on allegations of dowry and cruelty. However, a settlement was reached in 1994 wherein the wife agreed to withdraw the criminal charges, and the couple attempted to revive their marriage. Despite this, the wife was reportedly turned away from her matrimonial home in July 1995, leading the husband to file for divorce shortly thereafter.

A Division Bench of Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Donadi Ramesh held, “There can be no doubt that such a power does not exist to be exercised by this Court. At present, we remain an Appeal Court in terms of Section 19 of the Family Court Act, 1984. Even the extraordinary jurisdiction of the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India may not be exercised in such matters”

Advocate Ram Chandra Srivastava appeared for the Appellant and Advocate Vishwa Pratap Singh appeared for the Respondent.

The High Court reviewed the issues of desertion and cruelty. It concluded that the wife could not be deemed to have deserted the husband, given that she had withdrawn the criminal cases based on the promise of renewing their marriage. The Court added, “As to the acts of cruelty alleged prior to 1992, those have to be treated to have been specifically condoned or given up by the appellant upon his entering into a written settlement with the respondent to revive their matrimonial relationship.”

The appellant-husband had relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Prakshchandra Joshi v. Kuntal Prakashchandra Joshi @ Kuntal Visanji Shah, where the Apex Court used its Article 142 powers to dissolve a marriage. However, the Allahabad High Court pointed out that, unlike the Supreme Court, it does not possess similar powers under Article 142 and cannot dissolve marriages on the grounds cited by the appellant.

Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, emphasizing that the High Court’s jurisdiction remains confined to its appellate functions rather than granting comprehensive relief akin to that of the Supreme Court.

Cause Title: Sarvesh Kumar Sharma v. Sarvesh Kumari Sharma, [2024:AHC:142652-DB]

Appearance:

Appellant: Advocates Radhey Shyam, Anil Kumar, Rajesh Kumar Shaukla, Ram Chandra Srivastava, Manoj Kumar Singh