A single judge of the Supreme Court cannot grant divorce even if both parties agree

A couple agreed on everything: divorce, money, custody. But when they asked a single Supreme Court judge to sign off, he said — he couldn't.

Not because the law was against them. Not because the court doubted their settlement. But because the rules of the Supreme Court itself draw a line around what a single judge can decide — and dissolving a marriage, even by mutual consent, falls on the wrong side of that line.

The question this case raises is simple: Can a single judge of the Supreme Court, using the court's extraordinary constitutional power under Article 142 (the power to pass any order necessary to do complete justice), grant a divorce when both parties want it? The answer is no — not unless the rules say so.

January 2019 — the husband filed in Pune

A husband filed a divorce petition in the Family Court in Pune, Maharashtra, in January 2019. The case was registered as P.A. No. 151/2019. He sought divorce on the ground of cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (a provision that allows a spouse to seek divorce if the other has treated them with cruelty).

His wife, living in Gautam Budh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh, faced a problem. To defend herself in the Pune court, she would have to travel the roughly 1,500 km between Pune and Noida repeatedly — with a child, with work, with the ordinary difficulties of life. The sheer distance made each trip a burden of time and expense. So she filed a transfer petition in the Supreme Court under Section 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (a provision that allows a court to move a case from one court to another to serve the interests of justice). She asked that her husband's divorce case be moved from Pune to Gautam Budh Nagar.

The Supreme Court issued notice on the transfer petition and, on 8 May 2019, stayed the divorce proceedings in Pune. The family court's work ground to a halt. Then, in January 2020, the court directed both parties to try mediation at the Supreme Court Mediation Centre — a quiet room in the court complex where a neutral third party would attempt to bridge their differences.

February 2021 — the settlement that changed everything

Mediation worked. On 15 February 2021, the couple reached a full settlement at the Supreme Court Mediation Centre. The settlement agreement, signed by both parties, laid out the terms: they agreed to dissolve their marriage by mutual consent, the wife would receive a lump sum payment, and both sides would withdraw all pending cases against each other. The document, crisp and final, reflected a complete meeting of minds.

But here was the catch. Under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act (the provision that governs divorce by mutual consent), a couple must wait for at least six months after filing the first motion before the court can pass a final decree. The couple wanted to skip that waiting period. They had already settled everything. Why wait?

So they filed a joint application before the single judge who was hearing the transfer petition. They asked the court to use its power under Article 142 of the Constitution — the power to do complete justice — to dissolve their marriage immediately, bypassing the six-month waiting period.

The single judge, Justice Aniruddha Bose, had to decide: did he have the authority to say yes?

What a single judge can and cannot do

The Supreme Court usually sits in benches of two or three judges. But the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, allow a single judge to hear certain categories of cases. Order VI Rule 1 of those rules lists exactly four types of matters a single judge can decide:

• Petitions for special leave to appeal in criminal cases
• Criminal appeals where the sentence does not exceed a certain limit
• Transfer petitions (cases asking to move a proceeding from one court to another)
• Certain interlocutory applications (applications that arise during the course of a pending case)

The transfer petition — the wife's request to move the divorce case from Pune to Gautam Budh Nagar — fell squarely within the third category. That was fine. But the joint application for divorce by mutual consent? That was something entirely different.

The couple argued that Article 142 does not specify which bench can exercise it. The power to do complete justice, they said, belongs to the Supreme Court as a whole, and any judge sitting for the court can use it. The single judge agreed that Article 142 jurisdiction is not limited by bench composition in theory. But the Supreme Court Rules, made under Article 145(2) of the Constitution (which empowers the court to frame rules about its own functioning), do limit what a single judge can decide.

The proviso to Order VI Rule 1 is clear: a single judge's power is confined to those four categories. As Justice Bose wrote in his order, "Annulment of marriage by mutual consent under Article 142 cannot come within the four categories specified in Order VI Rule 1 of the Supreme Court Rules 2013." It is not even ancillary (closely related) to a transfer petition. A transfer petition asks: where should this case be heard? A divorce decree asks: should this marriage end? Those are fundamentally different questions.

The court's own past orders — all from Division Benches

The court acknowledged that the Supreme Court has, in several cases, used Article 142 to dissolve marriages by mutual consent and waive the six-month waiting period. But those orders were passed by Division Benches — benches of two or more judges. No single judge had done it, because the rules do not permit it.

The single judge held that while Article 142 jurisdiction can be exercised by any bench, the proviso to Order VI Rule 1 confines a single judge to the four specified categories. Since marriage dissolution does not fall within those categories, a single judge sitting alone cannot pass a decree dissolving a marriage — even when both parties have settled through mediation in a transfer petition.

The court disposed of the transfer petition as having lost its utility (since the parties had settled, there was no need to move the case). But it directed that the file — a thin sheaf of papers now marked with the judge's order — be placed before the Chief Justice of India for appropriate directions on the joint divorce application. In other words, the single judge sent the matter up the chain, so that a larger bench could decide whether to grant the divorce under Article 142.

What this means for couples who settle

For practitioners, this case draws a bright line. If you have a transfer petition before a single judge and the parties reach a settlement that includes divorce by mutual consent, do not expect the single judge to pass the divorce decree. The application must go before a Division Bench.

The practical takeaway: file the settlement and the joint application for divorce, but be prepared for the single judge to refer it to the Chief Justice for constitution of an appropriate bench. The transfer petition itself can be disposed of as settled, but the divorce decree requires a larger bench.

THE PLAY: When a transfer petition before a single judge results in a mediated settlement that includes divorce by mutual consent, file the joint application under Article 142 but anticipate that the single judge will refer it to the Chief Justice for a Division Bench — do not expect the decree from the single judge.

The couple agreed on everything. The court believed them. But the rules, not the facts, decided who could say the final word.