Real judgements, distilled

Legal Case Shots

Court judgements broken down into the case type, how the decision played out, and the lesson worth remembering, with the full judgement available as a PDF.

Frequently asked questions

Is this suitable for use in legal research and court filings?+

Legal Case Shots is built to help you quickly identify and understand relevant precedent. For citation in pleadings or filings, always verify against the full judgment PDF and current citation format (e.g., 2026 INSC ___).

How is a "lesson learnt" different from the judgment's holding?+

The holding is what the court legally decided. The lesson learnt translates that into a practical takeaway: what a lawyer should factor into case strategy or client advice as a result of this precedent.

Is the full judgment available, or just a summary?+

Both. Each case shows a distilled summary (case type, key holding, and lesson learnt) and links to the full judgment as a PDF for when you need the complete text for research or citation.

Can I filter judgments by date or case type?+

Yes. Use Advanced Filters to narrow results by decision date and by practice area, including Constitutional Law, Criminal Law, Service & Administrative Law, Family Law, Civil Property & Inheritance, and Labour & Industrial Law.

Can I search judgments by a specific judge?+

Yes. You can filter judgments by the judge or bench that decided the case, which is useful for tracking how a particular judge has reasoned on similar issues across multiple rulings.

What is Legal Case Shots?+

Legal Case Shots is a searchable database of Supreme Court of India judgments, each broken down into the case type, the court's key holding, and a practical lesson learnt, with the full judgment available as a PDF for citation or deeper reading.

Family LawSupreme Court of India

Gopalakrishna Surapaneni v. Anuradha Surpaneni Maiden

Civil Appeal · 2026 INSC 623Decided 27 May 2026
C.A. No.-008212-008213 - 2026
Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah · Justice R. Mahadevan

Background

The husband had sought divorce from his wife before the Family Court, which was dismissed, and the Andhra Pradesh High Court upheld that dismissal. The couple had been living separately since 2003, and the husband told the Supreme Court that the marriage had broken down irretrievably due to years of estrangement and dispute, while the wife, appearing in person, opposed the divorce and denied his allegations. By the time of this hearing, the husband had already paid the wife over Rs. 40 lakh and deposited a further amount with the Court registry that had grown to roughly Rs. 75 lakh with interest.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court found that the marriage was "dead for all practical purposes" after over two decades of separation, and that the wife could offer no satisfactory explanation when asked about the real differences between the parties or any realistic prospect of reconciliation. Using its special power under Article 142 of the Constitution, which lets the Supreme Court do complete justice in a case even beyond what ordinary divorce law allows, the Court granted a decree of divorce on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage. This was made conditional on the husband paying the wife Rs. 60 lakh within two months (on top of the roughly Rs. 75 lakh already deposited with the Registry, which was also directed to be released to her), and the Court expressly preserved the couple's daughter's rights, including to the father's estate and towards her future marriage expenses.

Lesson Learnt

Where a marriage has been separated for many years with no realistic chance of reconciliation, the Supreme Court can use its Article 142 power to grant a divorce on the ground of irretrievable breakdown even without both spouses' consent, but it will typically condition such relief on fair financial provision for the other spouse and protection of children's rights.

Gopalakrishna Surapaneni v. Anuradha Surpaneni Maiden – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware