Gautam Mehra vs. Sonia Mehra

Page 1 of 9 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA EXTRA-ORDINARY APPELLATE JURISDICTION SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO.284 OF 2026 GAUTAM MEHRA PETITIONER VERSUS SONIA MEHRA RESPONDENT O R D E R 1. The petitioner and the respondent were married on 03.03.2009. They were blessed with two children, a daughter born on 17.07.2010 and a son born on 11.08.2016. On account of marital discord between the parties, the husband on 08.05.2023 filed a petition for divorce under Section 13(1)(i) and (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking dissolution of marriage. The said proceedings are pending before the Family Court and in the interregnum, the father along with both the minor children left the matrimonial home and shifted elsewhere. While the fath er filed various Interlocutory Applications with a prayer for interim custody of the children and regulation of their visitation rights, the mother also sought interim directions with regard to interim custody of the children. Page 2 of 9 2. The present proceedings arise out of a dispute with regard to interim custody of the minor children. The Family Court by its order dated 07.08.2024 granted interim custody of both the children to the mother. The father was granted visitation rights , which included overnight visitation by both the children. The order dated 07.08.2024 passed by the Family Court was challenged before the High Court of Delhi 1. By the order dated 18.11.2025, the Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the appeal preferred by the father and granted liberty to the parties to move the Family Court for any further directions with regard to modification in the existing arrangement of the visitation schedule. The father, being aggrieved by the aforesaid order , has preferred this Special Leave Petition. 3. In the aforesaid backdrop, we have heard Mr. Prabhjit Jauhar, learned counsel appearing for the husband and Mr. Gopal Sankarnarayan, learned Senior Advocate for the wife . With their assistance, we have also perused the documentary material on record. Having gone through the impugned orders and thereafter having given thoughtful consideration to the entire matter, we are 1 For short, ‘the High Court’ Page 3 of 9 of the view that the impugned orders do not warrant any interference. 4. In the proceedings before the Family Court, the learned Judge after interacting with the minor children was of the view that both the children till about December 2023 had been staying along with their parents. The father had, however, taken away both the children with him in December 2023. Considering the age of the daughter, which was around fifteen years when the Family Court considered the matter and the son being aged about seven years, interim custody of the children was granted to the mother. To facilitate their interaction and also with a view to provide the children the company of their father, he was granted overnight visitation facility. When the proceedings reached the High Court at the behest of the father , it was noticed that the daughter had expressed her desire to stay with her mother , while the son continued to stay with his father. The interim order passed by it on 12.09.2024 was, accordingly, modified on 16.05.2025. The Court, thereafter, interacted with both the children on 13.08.2025. It again noted that the daughter desired to continue to live with her mother, while the son continued in the company of his father. The High Court, thus, found that the Family Court had considered Page 4 of 9 all relevant aspects while passing the interim order on 07.08.2024. It, therefore, did not interfere with that order and permitted the interim arrangements that were in force to continue. 5. It is seen that the minor daughter on her own volition desires to continue to reside with her mother, while her son desires the company of his father . We do not find any justifiable reason to disturb this arrangement. Suffice it to observe that besides the liberty granted to the parties to move the Family Court for any modification of the existing status quo, it would be in the interest of both the minor children that their parents make some arrangements that would enable the children to meet and interact between themselves. Being siblings, the bond between them ought not to be disturbed on account of the pending proceedings between their parents. We are hopeful that the parties will bear in mind the larger interest of their children so as to facilitate such arrangement, at least till the children attain majority. With the above observations and reserving the liberty granted to the parties to move the Family Court for any further modification of the present status quo , we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned orders. The Special Leave Petition is, thus, dismissed. The pending proceedings shall be decided on their own merits Page 5 of 9 without being influenced by any observations made in the impugned orders or the present order. Pending Interlocutory Applications are also disposed of. IA NO.45811/2026 6. This Interlocutory Application has been filed by the applicant-husband under Article 142(1) of the Constitution of India with a prayer to dissolve the marriage between the applicant and the non-applicant-wife on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of their marriage with a consequent prayer to put an end to all pending litigations between them. 7. Briefly, the applicant and the non-applicant were married on 03.03.2009. They have two minor children from their wedlock. On account of various differences, the husband on 08.05.2023 filed proceedings seeking divorce. According to the husband, various cases/cross cases have been filed by them against each other. These proceedings include those under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, those under Section 498A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code ; proceedings under the Family Courts Act, 1984 as well as a civil suit for injunction filed by the minor daughter against her mother. According to the husband, in view of the pendency of about twenty proceedings Page 6 of 9 between them and the fact that since December 2023, the parties have been living separately and thus , there has been an irretrievable breakdown of the marriage. Despite various attempts at reconciliation, the differences between them are of such nature that cannot be resolved. In this backdrop, a prayer for dissolution of the marriage has been made. 8. Reply has been filed by the wife to the aforesaid application. The prayer as made has been opposed by stating that the wife does not desire to put an end to the marital relationship. Her marriage has not irretrievably broken down and she does not desire to give a broken home to her children. Under the garb of the present application, the husband seeks a quick divorce under Article 142 of the Constitution of India as it is alleged that he was having an extra-marital affair with another lady. If the prayer made in the application was granted, the wife would be deprived of her legal right to oppose the divorce petition and it would also enable the husband to avoid any adjudication on merits by -passing the due process of law. It is, thus, stated that the Interlocutory Application warrants dismissal. 9. In the aforesaid backdrop, we have heard Mr. Prabhjit Jauhar, learned counsel appearing for the husband and Mr. Gopal Page 7 of 9 Sankarnarayan, learned Senior Advocate for the wife. While Mr. Prabhjit Jauhar by referring to the decision of this Court in Rinku Baheti vs. Sandesh Sharda2 urged the Court to grant the prayers made in the Interlocutory Application that would enable the parties to put an end to the various litigations pending between them and also end their marital relations, Mr. Gopal Sankarnarayan, learned Senior Advocate for the wife vehemently opposed the aforesaid contentions by submitting that the husband was attempting to wriggle out of his matrimonial relationship without making out any ground for divorce. 10. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and having given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions canvassed, we are of the considered view that the prayer made in the Interlocutory Application deserves rejection. One of the considerations to be borne in mind is that grant of divorce on account of irretrievable breakdown of marriage under Article 142 of the Constitution of India is not as a matter of right but is pursuant to exercise of discretion by the Supreme Court, bearing in mind various factors to ensure that complete justice is done to both parties. It is only when th is Court is convinced and also 2 2024 INSC 1014 Page 8 of 9 satisfied that the marriage between the parties has become totally unworkable and beyond salvation that grant of such relief could be considered. 11. While the husband contends that grant of such relief would result in putting an end to various litigations pending between the parties, the stand of the wife is that she does not want to be divorced a s she does not want to give a broken home to her children. She also states that she does not desire to get married again and intends that her children spend time with both their parents as a family unit. It is true that there are litigations pending between the parties including the dispute as regards custody of the minor children. It may also be stated that attempts at mediation have not been successful. However, when the respective stands of the husband and wife are considered, we do not find the present c ase to be one where there has been an irretrievable breakdown of their marriage , at least not for the purpose of invoking our jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India. Having taken into consideration the decisions in Rinku Baheti (supra) and Shilpa Sailesh vs. Varun Sreenivasan 3, we are not inclined to accede to the prayer made by the husband for 3 2023 INSC 468 Page 9 of 9 granting a decree of divorce on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of their marriage in exercise of power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India. 12. Consequently, the Interlocutory Application stands dismissed. Needless to state that any observations made herein are only for the purposes of considering the prayers made in the Interlocutory Application and the same shall not have any bearing on any pending proceedings. …...………………………..J. [UJJAL BHUYAN] .…..………………………..J. [ATUL S. CHANDURKAR] NEW DELHI, SEPTEMBER 8, 2026.