Judgment Intelligence
Disposed Of- Court
- Supreme Court of India
- Date of Decision
- 29 October 2026
- Bench
- Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana
- Relevant Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India — Article 142; Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — Section 13-B
Appeal disposed of: joint application allowed; marriage dissolved by a decree of divorce by mutual consent under Article 142; custody and visitation governed by the Settlement Agreement, subject to the children's welfare; the listed proceedings quashed or disposed of; the Agreement made part of the order (paras 9-12).
Source Supreme Court of India, www.sci.gov.in — order dated 29 October 2026
Key holdings
- The marriage was dissolved by mutual consent under Article 142; the parties had lived apart since October 2022 (para 9).
- Under the Agreement, the father keeps permanent custody of the two minor children until majority; the mother has visitation and parenting time (para 7).
- Custody and visitation follow the Agreement, subject to the children's welfare and any order lawfully made in their best interests (para 9).
- The proceedings identified in the Agreement stand quashed or disposed of as withdrawn or infructuous (para 9).
- The Agreement's terms are part of the order, and the parties must abide by them (para 10).
Judgment digest by NyayVidhan: a summary of the court's judgment, not its text. The judgment itself is the authoritative version.
Brief Facts
Court's Findings
Legal Principle
NyayVidhan's view · Practice note
Why It Matters
This order shows how a mother's appeal over the custody of her children, once sent to the Supreme Court Mediation Centre, ended the whole family dispute in one order: divorce by mutual consent under Article 142, agreed custody and visitation, and closure of the pending cases (paras 4, 9). Two points stand out. The Court kept the agreed custody arrangement ‘subject to their welfare and any order lawfully made in their best interests’ (para 9). And only the proceedings identified in the Agreement were closed, with its terms made part of the order (paras 9-10), so parties should list every pending case in the settlement. On the wider Article 142 power, see Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan.
Editorial comment by the NyayVidhan Editorial Desk. It is not part of the Court's judgment and is not legal advice.
