The Supreme Court of India on Wednesday dissolved a long-standing marriage on the ground of irretrievable breakdown by exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India. A division bench comprising Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice R. Mahadevan set aside the orders of the Family Court and the High Court of Andhra Pradesh which had previously rejected the husband’s plea for divorce. Observing that the marital bond was dead for all practical purposes, the Court ordered a comprehensive financial settlement, directing the transfer of Rs. 60,00,000 to the wife in addition to the release of Rs. 68,00,000 plus accrued interest currently deposited in the Registry of the Court.
Background of the Dispute
The matrimonial dispute originated from cross-appeals arising out of a final judgment and order dated September 26, 2014, passed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in FCA No. 16/2007 and FCA No. 22/2007. The High Court had upheld the dismissal of the divorce petition filed by the appellant-husband against the respondent-wife. Challenging these orders, the husband moved the Supreme Court via Special Leave Petitions in 2014, which were subsequently granted leave to transition into civil appeals.
Arguments on Behalf of the Appellant-Husband
The learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the parties have been living separately since the year 2003, and despite several efforts, they could not be reunited. It was contended that the conduct of the respondent-wife right from the inception of the marriage caused severe harassment to the appellant. Specifically, while the couple was residing abroad, the respondent allegedly made wild and scandalous allegations against him, which directly resulted in the appellant losing his job and subsequently relocating to India to live with his parents at Hyderabad.
The appellant’s counsel further submitted that the family was forced to sell their residential house in Hyderabad and relocate to Andhra Pradesh due to the continuous harassment faced by them. Following the relocation, the appellant’s father passed away, and the sale proceeds of the Hyderabad house were completely exhausted on his medical treatment. Presently, the appellant possesses no permanent residence or house of his own, or in the name of his parents, and resides with his mother at his sister’s residence in Hyderabad. Given this backdrop, the appellant expressed that he has no future with the respondent, has embarked upon a path of self-realization, and does not want his peace disturbed at this stage of life.
Regarding financial upkeep, the appellant stated that he had already provided more than Rs. 40,00,000 to the respondent for her and their daughter’s maintenance since their separation. Furthermore, in compliance with an earlier directive of the Supreme Court, the appellant had deposited Rs. 68,00,000 in the Court’s Registry, an amount which has now accumulated interest to reach approximately Rs. 75,00,000. When queried by the bench regarding a permanent one-time settlement, the appellant agreed to pay an additional sum of Rs. 60,00,000.
Arguments on Behalf of the Respondent-Wife
The respondent-wife, who appeared in person through virtual mode, vehemently opposed the prayer for the grant of a decree of divorce. She contended that the assertions and issues raised by the appellant were frivolous and fictitious, maintaining that no such incidents of harassment or scandalous allegations had ever occurred. The respondent firmly resisted the dissolution of marriage, explicitly citing societal pressure as a major reason for her opposition.
However, when the Court queried her regarding the real differences between the parties—noting its tentative opinion that the relationship could not be restored by judicial orders—the respondent-wife was unable to provide any satisfactory explanation. Furthermore, she refused to accept the quantum of money offered by the appellant as a permanent settlement in terms of a divorce.
The Court’s Observations and Analysis
Faced with a peculiar situation where the stances of both parties were absolutely hard and completely inflexible, the Supreme Court noted that it was constrained to take a hard decision that might not be entirely acceptable to either party. The bench emphasized that the matter must be looked at objectively, ensuring that both individuals are allowed to choose how they wish to spend their lives ahead.
Refusing to compel the continuation of a failed marriage, the Court critically observed: “forcing a relationship, that too of husband and wife, cannot be done by judicial proceedings.” Taking a highly realistic view of the circumstances, Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice R. Mahadevan concluded that “the marriage between the parties being dead for all practical purposes has to be nullified.”
Final Decision and Directions
Consequent to its findings, the Supreme Court allowed the appeals and granted a decree of divorce on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage by invoking its power and jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India. The Registry was directed to prepare the decree accordingly.
The grant of the divorce decree was made strictly subject to the following directions:
- The appellant must pay or transfer an amount of Rs. 60,00,000 in favor of the respondent-wife within two months, in line with his undertaking before the Court, and subsequently file proof of such transfer before the Court.
- The amount of Rs. 68,00,000 lying deposited with the Registry, along with whatever interest has accrued in the interregnum, must be disbursed to the respondent-wife within two weeks upon the completion of necessary formalities.
- The Court clarified that the rights of the couple’s daughter, who was not a party to the proceedings, shall remain entirely unaffected. The bench recorded that she “shall not be denuded of her rights which are crystallized due to her being the biological daughter of the appellant,” which includes her rights over the father’s estate and ancestral properties. The Court also took on record the appellant’s voluntary agreement to contribute his share toward the daughter’s marriage whenever it takes place.
Finally, the bench ordered the quashing of a connected case filed by the appellant, bearing FCA No. 93 of 2019, which was pending before a court at Hyderabad. All other pending applications were formally disposed of.
Case Details
Case Title: Gopalakrishna Surapaneni vs. Anuradha Surpaneni Maiden
Case No: Civil Appeal No(s). 8212-8213 OF 2026 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.34898-34899 of 2014)
Bench: Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Justice R. Mahadevan
Date: May 27, 2026
