In the case of Vishal Shah v. Monalisha Gupta (2025 INSC 254), the Supreme Court of India, comprising Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Sandeep Mehta, delivered a judgment on February 20, 2025, addressing issues related to domestic violence proceedings and marital disputes. The Supreme Court ruled that a person does not need to be physically present in court for proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, unless they violate a protection order. This blog analyzes a Supreme Court ruling on domestic violence proceedings, clarifying that personal presence in court is not required unless a protection order is violated and highlighting the case background, legal reasoning, key provisions, and its broader implications.
Case Background of Domestic Violence Case
The case of Vishal Shah v. Monalisha Gupta (2025) revolves around allegations of domestic violence and legal proceedings under various laws. The couple got married in February 2018 and moved to the United States in March 2018, where Vishal was employed as a Software Engineer since 2014. However, the marriage soon faced serious issues, with Vishal alleging that he was subjected to physical and mental abuse by Monalisha while they were residing in the U.S.
In April 2018, an incident occurred where Monalisha allegedly assaulted Vishal, causing injuries to his face. Although Vishal initially refrained from pressing charges, he reported the matter to the local police, who issued a warning to Monalisha. However, as the disputes continued, Vishal had to seek police intervention again, which led to Monalisha being charged with second-degree assault in the U.S. Following this, the couple returned to India after approximately 80 days but started living separately.
Upon their return, Monalisha initiated multiple legal proceedings against Vishal and his family across various courts in India. She filed cases under Section 498A (cruelty by husband or relatives), Section 307 (attempt to murder), Section 506 (criminal intimidation), Section 406 (criminal breach of trust), Section 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), and Section 324 (causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, as well as Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. Additionally, she filed applications under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act), sought restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and claimed maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
In October 2018, Vishal’s passport was seized, preventing him from traveling back to the U.S. for work. Between 2018 and 2020, Monalisha continued living in the same house as her mother-in-law, whom she allegedly subjected to physical and mental harassment, eventually forcing her to leave the house. Later, she also filed an application under Section 26 of the DV Act against Vishal and his family. When Vishal failed to appear before the Trial Court due to his seized passport, a Judicial Magistrate in Howrah directed the initiation of extradition proceedings against him.
Vishal’s sister filed a Criminal Revision Petition before the Calcutta High Court, but it was dismissed. Aggrieved by this, Vishal approached the Supreme Court for relief.
Case Reasoning and Supreme Court’s Observations on Domestic Violence
The Supreme Court, after reviewing the facts and circumstances of the case, observed that the marriage lacked cordiality and a meaningful marital relationship from the very beginning. The Court remarked that the relationship had been strained since its inception and had further deteriorated over time. It stated that “there was hardly any cordiality or meaningful marital relationship that flowed from the marriage between the parties.”
The Court further noted that the couple had been living separately for a long period, and with the passage of time, any bond of affection that may have existed had completely faded. It emphasized that the numerous ongoing litigations, deep-rooted differences, and unwillingness of both parties to reconcile clearly indicated that the marriage had irretrievably broken down. The Court stated that “the admitted long-standing separation, nature of differences, prolonged and multiple litigations pending adjudication, and the unwillingness of the parties to reconcile are evidence enough to establish beyond all manner of doubt that the marriage between the parties has broken down irretrievably and that there is no scope whatsoever for marriage to survive. Thus, no useful purpose, emotional or practical, would be served by continuing the soured relationship. On the basis of the above factual matrix, the present appears to be a case of irretrievable breakdown of marriage”,
Another crucial factor influencing the Court’s decision was the absence of children from the marriage, which meant that dissolving the marriage would not affect any innocent child. The Court held that “this is a fit case warranting the exercise of the discretion conferred under Article 142(1) of the Constitution of India to dissolve the marriage between the parties on the grounds of irretrievable breakdown of marriage.”
Regarding financial considerations, the Court took into account the earning capacities of both spouses. It noted that in 2018, the wife was earning Rs. 50,000 per month, while the husband was earning Rs. 8 lakhs per month, which had likely increased to over Rs. 10 lakhs per month. However, the husband, in his rejoinder affidavit, stated that he was currently unemployed and struggling to find work in India due to multiple legal cases filed against him. Considering these circumstances, the Court determined that a one-time alimony settlement would be a fair resolution.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court:
- Dissolved the marriage under Article 142(1) of the Constitution, recognizing the irretrievable breakdown of the relationship.
- Set aside the previous judgment and dismissed the cases filed against the husband and his family.
- Directed the husband to pay Rs. 25 lakhs as permanent alimony to his wife.
- Ordered the authorities to release the husband’s passport, allowing him to travel freely.
This judgment reinforces the principle that prolonged separation, irreconcilable differences, and continuous legal battles can justify the exercise of Article 142(1) for the dissolution of marriage, ensuring fairness for both parties involved.
Legal Provisions Applied
The sections applied in the case of Vishal Shah v. Monalisha Gupta (2025) are as follows:
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC):
- Section 498A (Cruelty by Husband or Relatives of Husband) – This section penalizes mental or physical cruelty inflicted on a woman by her husband or his relatives. It covers acts of harassment for dowry or any treatment that drives a woman to commit suicide or causes grave mental or physical harm.
- Section 307 (Attempt to Murder) – This provision applies if a person intentionally attempts to cause death with an act that, if successful, would amount to murder. It carries severe punishment, including imprisonment for life.
- Section 506 (Criminal Intimidation) – It deals with cases where a person threatens another with harm to body, reputation, or property with the intent to create fear. If the threat involves death or grievous hurt, the punishment is more severe.
- Section 406 (Criminal Breach of Trust) – This section punishes the misuse or dishonest handling of property entrusted to someone, such as a husband misusing a wife’s stridhan (marital assets).
- Section 323 (Voluntarily Causing Hurt) – It penalizes any act that intentionally causes bodily pain, disease, or injury, carrying a punishment of up to one year of imprisonment or a fine.
- Section 324 (Voluntarily Causing Hurt by Dangerous Weapons or Means) – This section applies when a person intentionally causes injury using a weapon or dangerous means, leading to a higher punishment than simple hurt under Section 323.
Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961
- Section 3 (Penalty for Giving or Taking Dowry) – This section prohibits both giving and taking dowry and prescribes a penalty of at least five years imprisonment or a fine.
- Section 4 (Penalty for Demanding Dowry) – Any demand for dowry before, during, or after marriage is punishable, even if the dowry was not actually given or taken.
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act):
- Section 12 (Application for Reliefs under DV Act) – This allows an aggrieved woman to file a complaint before a Magistrate seeking protection orders, residence orders, monetary relief, custody orders, or compensation orders against her husband or in-laws.
- Section 26 (Reliefs in Other Proceedings) – This provision enables a woman to claim reliefs under the DV Act even if she has already filed cases under other family laws, such as the Hindu Marriage Act or CrPC for maintenance.
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA):
- Section 9 (Restitution of Conjugal Rights): This allows a spouse to file a petition demanding that their estranged spouse return to the marriage if they have left without reasonable cause. The respondent may defend themselves by proving cruelty, adultery, or other valid reasons for separation.
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC):
- Section 125 (Maintenance of Wife, Children, and Parents) – This section ensures financial support to wives, children, or dependent parents if the person responsible for their care neglects or refuses to maintain them. It applies regardless of religious background.
These sections collectively address issues related to domestic violence, dowry demands, personal safety, marital rights, and maintenance obligations within the context of matrimonial disputes.
Implications of the Judgment
- Clarification on Personal Appearance in DV Act Cases: The ruling establishes that personal presence in domestic violence proceedings is not mandatory unless a protection order is breached, reducing the burden on accused parties in such cases.
- Recognition of Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage: The Supreme Court reinforced its power under Article 142(1) to grant divorce in cases where the marriage has completely failed, even if the law does not explicitly provide for it. This sets a precedent for granting divorce in cases of prolonged separation and unresolved disputes.
- Balanced Approach to Alimony: By considering the financial status of both spouses, the Court ensured a fair one-time settlement, preventing prolonged legal battles over maintenance and financial dependency.
- Protection Against Misuse of Legal Provisions: The judgment highlights the impact of multiple legal proceedings on individuals, acknowledging how excessive litigation can hinder personal and professional life, such as the husband’s passport impoundment and employment struggles.
- Judicial Intervention in Unfair Extradition Orders: The Court’s decision to quash the extradition proceedings clarifies that legal actions must be reasonable and proportionate, preventing unnecessary harassment of individuals who are unable to appear due to valid constraints.
- Encouragement for Out-of-Court Settlements: By enforcing a one-time alimony settlement, the ruling promotes the idea of resolving disputes efficiently rather than engaging in prolonged litigation, reducing the emotional and financial strain on both parties.
This judgment serves as a significant legal precedent in cases involving failed marriages, domestic violence allegations, and excessive legal actions, ensuring fairness while preventing misuse of legal provisions.
Final Thoughts
The Supreme Court’s ruling underscores the irretrievable breakdown of marriage and ensures a fair resolution by granting divorce under Article 142(1). It clarifies that personal appearance in DV Act cases is not mandatory unless a protection order is breached. The Court also balanced financial justice by awarding one-time alimony and ordered the release of the husband’s impounded passport, preventing legal misuse. This judgment sets a crucial precedent for domestic violence cases, marital disputes, and maintenance claims in India.
