The Supreme Court has dissolved a marriage solemnized in 1980, exercising its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, observing that the parties have lived apart for nearly 30 years and the marriage has irretrievably broken down.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice K. Vinod Chandran set aside the order of the Allahabad High Court, granting a decree of divorce to the appellant-husband.
Background of the Case
The appeal was directed against the impugned order dated September 3, 2024, passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in First Appeal No. 715 of 2004. The High Court had affirmed the earlier order dated April 28, 2004, passed by the Additional District Judge/Special Judge, Budaun, Uttar Pradesh, in Matrimonial Case No. 208 of 1995. Both the Trial Court and the High Court had dismissed the husband’s petition for dissolution of marriage on the premise that cruelty or desertion on the part of the respondent-wife was not proved.
Submissions of the Parties
Mr. Ranjan Mukherjee, learned counsel for the appellant-husband, submitted that the marriage took place in the year 1980. While the respondent-wife lived in the matrimonial home intermittently, the couple has not lived together “even for a single day” since 1995.
The counsel argued that while the lower courts refused divorce on the grounds that cruelty was not established—noting that the wife had withdrawn criminal cases—the factual reality remained that the marriage was dead. It was further submitted that the respondent-wife had chosen not to appear before the High Court and had failed to appear before the Supreme Court despite efforts to serve notice.
The respondent-wife remained unrepresented. The Court noted that in a previous order dated July 22, 2025, it had permitted the petitioner to serve dasti notice and explicitly directed that the wife be informed of her entitlement to legal aid services through the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee if she faced financial constraints. Despite these measures, the wife did not enter an appearance.
Court’s Observations and Analysis
The Supreme Court observed that the “facts speak for themselves,” highlighting that it is undisputed that the parties have not lived together since 1995.
Regarding the respondent’s absence, the Bench noted:
“Under the aforesaid circumstances, when the respondent – wife after having resisted the challenge before the Trial Court, has thereafter, not chosen to contest is a sufficient proof that she is not interested in pursuing the issue of divorce which leads to the next presumption that she is no more interested for restoration of relationship also.”
The Court further observed that the withdrawal of criminal cases by the wife and her failure to file any fresh cases indicated that “she has no interest in pursuing the matter.”
The Decision
The Bench concluded that a case was made out for the invocation of power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to grant a decree of divorce on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage to give a “quietus to the present issue.”
While allowing the appeal, the Court kept the avenue for financial support open for the respondent. The Order stated:
“If the respondent-wife feels that she is in need of some financial support by way of permanent alimony or otherwise, it will be open for her to approach this Court for the same.”
The Court clarified that such an approach must be made within a period of six months from the date of the order. It further directed the District Legal Services Committee of the Civil Court, Budaun, to coordinate with the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee to provide assistance to the respondent should she choose to file for alimony.
Case Details:
- Case Title: Shri Sarvesh Kumar Sharma v. Smt. Sarvesh Kumari Sharma
- Case Number: Civil Appeal Arising out of SLP(C) No. 10130 of 2025
- Coram: Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice K. Vinod Chandran
