Court’s Decision
In a landmark ruling delivered on 15 July 2025, the Supreme Court granted divorce to a husband and wife under its extraordinary powers conferred by Article 142 of the Constitution, citing the irretrievable breakdown of marriage as a valid ground. The Court dissolved the marriage despite concurrent findings of fact by both the Family Court and the Delhi High Court rejecting the ground of cruelty. Importantly, it enhanced the maintenance amount payable to the wife and child to ₹15,000 per month, stating, “It is in the best interest of both the parties and their minor child that they be allowed to lead their lives independently and peacefully, free from the shadow of prolonged and futile legal battles.”
Facts
The marriage was solemnised in May 2008 according to Hindu rites. A male child was born in March 2009. However, disputes arose almost immediately, and the couple began living separately by October 2009. The husband filed for divorce in 2010 under Section 13(1)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, citing cruelty, including allegations that the wife assaulted his ailing mother to usurp her property, engaged in extramarital affairs, and physically abused him with the help of her brother. The wife refuted all allegations and countered that she was abandoned by the husband and left to fend for herself and the child without financial support, facing constant neglect and abuse from the husband and his family.
The Family Court rejected the divorce petition in 2017. The Delhi High Court affirmed the decision in 2019, observing that granting divorce would be tantamount to “rewarding the husband for leaving his wife and minor son.” The husband then approached the Supreme Court.
Issues
- Whether a decree of divorce could be granted on the ground of cruelty under Section 13(1)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
- Whether the long duration of separation and complete cessation of cohabitation justified the dissolution of marriage on the ground of irretrievable breakdown under Article 142 of the Constitution.
- Whether the earlier judgments of the Family Court and High Court rejecting cruelty as a ground were binding.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The husband submitted that the parties had been living separately for 16 years and had no cohabitation or conjugal relations, effectively reducing the marriage to a legal fiction. He contended that continuing the marriage served no purpose and amounted to judicial cruelty. He further relied on his acquittal in the criminal proceedings under Sections 498A, 406, and 34 IPC filed by the wife, arguing that this conclusively demonstrated that the allegations of cruelty were baseless. He invoked the judgment in Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan to submit that the Supreme Court has the power under Article 142 to dissolve marriages that have irretrievably broken down.
Respondent’s Arguments
The wife opposed the divorce, relying on the concurrent findings of the lower courts that rejected the plea of cruelty. She alleged that the husband had not only deserted her and the child but had also denied the paternity of their son, showing his irresponsibility and inhumanity. She argued that allowing divorce in such circumstances would allow the husband to benefit from his own wrongs. Additionally, she sought enhancement of the maintenance granted under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Analysis of the Law
The Supreme Court considered the evolving jurisprudence surrounding irretrievable breakdown of marriage as a distinct ground for divorce. While such a ground is not codified in statutory law, the Court reaffirmed its discretionary power under Article 142 to do complete justice in appropriate cases. The Court also analysed the practical reality of a marriage that had become a shell devoid of substance. It found that compelling a couple to remain legally married in such cases perpetuated harm and contradicted the spirit of matrimonial law aimed at promoting companionship and mutual respect.
Precedent Analysis
- Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan [(2023) 4 SCC 692]: The Court referred to this case, where it had recognised irretrievable breakdown of marriage as a ground for divorce under Article 142. The current judgment extends that logic, applying it where factual cruelty was not established but the marriage was practically defunct.
- Amutha v. A.R. Subramaniam [(2023) SCC OnLine SC 611]: The Court cited this decision to underscore that the welfare and dignity of both spouses must be prioritised and that continuing a dead marriage only breeds mental agony and societal burden.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court emphasised that the marriage had become unworkable and irreparably broken, with the couple having lived apart for over 16 years. The criminal case filed by the wife against the husband and his family had ended in acquittal. The Court remarked that it was unreasonable to expect the husband to continue in a relationship with someone who had falsely accused him of criminal offences. The Court noted that the mediation efforts had also failed, and continuing the marital tie would only fuel further animosity and litigation.
Significantly, the Court declared:
“Forcing a dead marriage to continue only perpetuates mental agony and societal burden… it is in the best interest of both parties and their child to sever the legal bond and allow them to live freely and peacefully.”
Conclusion
The Supreme Court set aside the orders of the Family Court and the Delhi High Court and granted a decree of divorce by exercising its powers under Article 142. It also enhanced the monthly maintenance to ₹15,000 in favour of the wife and child, considering the husband’s limited income and the wife’s responsibility as a homemaker. The Court reiterated that “the continuance of marriage shall only fuel animosity and litigation between the parties.”
Implications
This judgment reinforces the Supreme Court’s position that irretrievable breakdown of marriage is a legitimate ground for divorce, even in the absence of cruelty or other traditional grounds under the Hindu Marriage Act. It marks a shift towards recognising the futility of legally continuing a marriage that has lost its emotional and physical substance. The judgment also signals that acquittals in criminal proceedings between spouses can significantly impact the assessment of cruelty in matrimonial cases.
Cases Referred and Their Relevance
- Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan: Cited to validate the Supreme Court’s authority under Article 142 to dissolve a marriage on the ground of irretrievable breakdown.
- Amutha v. A.R. Subramaniam: Relied upon to affirm the principle that the dignity of both spouses should be prioritised and dead marriages should not be prolonged for form’s sake.
FAQs
1. Can the Supreme Court grant divorce even if lower courts deny it?
Yes, under Article 142 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court can grant divorce even when lower courts have refused it, particularly in cases involving irretrievable breakdown of marriage.
2. What is the legal effect of long separation between spouses?
Prolonged separation, especially over a decade, can be considered by the Supreme Court as evidence of irretrievable breakdown, forming a valid ground for divorce under its special powers.
3. Is acquittal in a criminal case between spouses relevant in divorce proceedings?
Yes, an acquittal in a criminal case, such as allegations under Section 498A IPC, can affect the evaluation of cruelty as a ground for divorce and may support the claim that the allegations were false.
