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

Vikas Kanaujia vs. Sarita

Not available · 2024 INSC 517Decided 10 Jul 2024
Not available
Justice Vikram Nath · Justice Satish Chandra Sharma

Background

The appellant husband, a doctor, and respondent wife, also a doctor, married in 2002 but lived together for barely 23 days before the wife left for her parental home; a brief 20-day reconciliation attempt in 2005 also failed. The husband obtained a divorce decree from the Family Court on the ground of cruelty in 2006, but the Allahabad High Court set it aside in 2019, holding that the wife had not deserted him of her own free will. Over the following two decades the couple fought roughly six legal battles against each other, including cross criminal complaints (which ended in acquittal/discharge for the husband's side) and maintenance proceedings, and the wife even filed a "missing person" complaint against the husband after the High Court's order.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court invoked its special power under Article 142 of the Constitution to grant a decree of divorce on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage, relying on the Constitution Bench ruling in Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan that this power can be used even when one spouse opposes divorce. It found that the parties had lived together for a total of only about 43 days in over 22 years of marriage, both were now in their early 50s with independent lives, and multiple rounds of litigation and mediation had failed to reconcile them, making continuation of the legal marital tie meaningless. Since both parties were financially independent professionals with equal earning capacity, the Court dissolved the marriage but declined to award any permanent alimony.

Lesson Learnt

Where a marriage has completely and irretrievably broken down (evidenced by prolonged separation, repeated failed reconciliation attempts, and years of mutual litigation) the Supreme Court can grant a divorce under Article 142 even without the consent of both spouses, since keeping a dead marriage alive on paper serves no one.

Vikas Kanaujia vs. Sarita – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware