After 8 years of bitter legal fight, the Supreme Court finally put an end to the dead marriage between Anurag Goel and his second wife. The Court quashed the 498A case and granted divorce using its special powers under Article 142. The Court said the case was more of a regular marital dispute and not criminal in nature. It also made sure both parties go their separate ways peacefully by finalising the terms of property settlement.
Brief Facts of the Case
- Anurag Goel married the respondent in July 2015. Both had already gone through one divorce before.
- They stayed together for about 1 year and 9 months in a Mumbai flat that Anurag got after his first marriage ended (for his autistic child’s future).
- In April 2017, Anurag left the house and moved to Faridabad, stating mental harassment and responsibilities towards his aged parents and child.
- His wife filed a 498A complaint and later also filed a Domestic Violence case.
- In 2022, both parties agreed to a divorce by mutual consent and even signed a settlement.
- But after the first motion, the wife backed out and demanded ₹12 crore along with the flat.
- Anurag approached the Supreme Court seeking divorce and quashing of false criminal cases.
Legal Provisions Involved
- Section 498A IPC – Cruelty by husband or relatives
- Section 406 & 34 IPC – Criminal breach of trust and common intention
- Section 482 CrPC – High Court’s power to quash cases
- Domestic Violence Act, 2005
- Article 142, Constitution of India – Supreme Court’s power to give complete justice
- Section 13B, Hindu Marriage Act – Divorce by mutual consent
Arguments by Both Sides
Husband (Anurag Goel):
- Said he faced harassment and was forced to resign to care for his differently-abled child.
- Willing to honour earlier agreement and give ₹4 crore flat along with parking and cars.
- Accused wife of backing out just to demand more money.
Wife (Respondent):
- Claimed she was deserted and had no source of income.
- Alleged fraud and coercion in signing settlement.
- Demanded ₹12 crore plus flat, saying husband was still rich.
What the Court Observed
- FIR was filed one year after separation, and allegations were vague and general.
- No specific or serious allegations of cruelty or violence were found.
- Court said the marriage was beyond repair and emotionally finished.
- It found the wife’s new demand of ₹12 crore unreasonable, especially when she had agreed to earlier terms and was educated and employable.
- Court accepted husband’s current financial position and responsibility towards autistic child.
- Directed him to transfer the flat and clear maintenance dues.
Final Conclusion of the Judgment
- 498A case and criminal charges quashed.
- Marriage dissolved under Article 142 due to irretrievable breakdown.
- Flat in Mumbai (worth ₹4 crore) to be transferred to wife with all dues cleared.
- If either party fails to follow Court orders, specific legal consequences will follow.
- All existing and future legal cases between them relating to marriage stand closed permanently.
Comments from the author of this website
Let’s call a spade a spade — this case is a textbook example of how some matrimonial laws are used not for justice, but for pressure. Here, the husband left his job to care for a disabled child and elderly parents, while fighting a broken marriage. Still, he faced criminal cases, demands of crores, and never-ending court battles.
Even after both sides mutually agreed to part ways and signed the deal, the wife changed her mind and demanded ₹12 crore — as if divorce settlements are up for auction. The complaint under 498A came after a full year of separation, full of general and vague accusations, just to drag him into criminal litigation.
Many men face similar situations — accused, humiliated, and forced to negotiate their way out of a marriage under legal and social pressure. Laws meant to protect are being misused as tools to punish and extract. It’s not just one man suffering; it’s a wider trend that’s eroding the basic principle of fairness in relationships and justice in courts.
Final Thoughts
This case should make lawmakers and society reflect deeply. When laws intended to safeguard women are twisted into weapons during marital disputes, it’s not just men who suffer — the justice system suffers too. False cases and one-sided laws lead to emotional, financial, and mental trauma for innocent individuals.
The Supreme Court, in this case, saw through the bitterness and manipulation and took a balanced approach. The husband was not let off lightly — he still has to give a ₹4 crore flat — but the court refused to allow further misuse of the law.
It’s high time to talk about equality on both sides — not just in speeches, but also in law and in practice.
Read Complete Judgement Here