The Supreme Court has dissolved a marriage under Article 142 of the Constitution, citing irretrievable breakdown and a 16-year-long separation between the spouses. The Court held that forcing a dead marriage to continue serves no beneficial purpose and only perpetuates mental agony and societal burden.
Background
The marriage between the appellant and the respondent was solemnised on May 7, 2008, in Delhi. A son was born on March 25, 2009. However, the relationship broke down shortly after the wedding, and the parties began living separately from October 2009.
In 2010, the appellant filed a divorce petition under Section 13(1)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 before the Family Court, alleging cruelty. The petition contained allegations that the respondent had assaulted the appellant’s ailing mother, physically abused the appellant, maintained an extra-marital relationship, and committed assault with the help of her brother.
The respondent denied all allegations, claiming that the appellant had failed to provide financial support and had abandoned her and their son. She also alleged that she faced neglect and abuse during the brief cohabitation.
Family Court and High Court Findings
The Family Court dismissed the divorce petition on November 23, 2017, finding that the allegations of cruelty and pressure for property transfer were unsubstantiated. It described the appellant’s case as “uninspiring and unworthy of acceptance.”
The Court also rejected the appellant’s application for maintenance under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. However, it directed the appellant to pay ₹4,500 per month to the respondent and their child and ₹5,000 towards litigation costs.
The appeal before the Delhi High Court was dismissed on February 26, 2019. The High Court agreed with the Family Court’s reasoning and held that granting divorce on the ground of irretrievable breakdown would amount to rewarding the appellant for deserting his wife and child. A cost of ₹10,000 was also imposed.
Supreme Court Proceedings
Before the Supreme Court, it was submitted that the spouses had been living apart for more than 16 years and there was no scope for reconciliation. It was further submitted that in a criminal case filed under Sections 498A, 406, and 34 of the IPC, the appellant and his family had been acquitted, and that the marriage was effectively defunct for all practical and legal purposes.
The appellant relied on the decision in Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan [(2023) 4 SCC 692], in which the Supreme Court had held that irretrievable breakdown of marriage can be a valid basis for divorce under Article 142 of the Constitution.
The respondent opposed the plea, pointing out that the courts below had concurrently rejected the claim of cruelty. It was argued that the appellant had even denied the paternity of the child, which showed disregard for the emotional and social wellbeing of the respondent and the child. An enhancement of maintenance under Section 125 CrPC was also sought.
Supreme Court’s Observations
The bench, comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, noted two undisputed facts: that the parties had been separated since October 2009 and that the appellant and his family had been acquitted in the criminal case initiated by the respondent.
The Court observed:
“The institution of marriage is rooted in dignity, mutual respect and shared companionship, and when these foundational aspects are irreparably lost, forcing a couple to remain legally bound serves no beneficial purpose.”
Referring to Amutha v. A.R. Subramaniam [(2023) SCC OnLine SC 611], the Court reiterated:
“The welfare and dignity of both the spouses must be prioritized, and that compelling a dead marriage to continue only perpetuates mental agony and societal burden.”
The Court held that the prolonged separation and detachment clearly established an irretrievable breakdown of the marital bond, and that any continuation of the marriage would only deepen hostility and prolong litigation.
Final Judgment
In exercise of its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court:
- Set aside the Delhi High Court judgment dated February 26, 2019
- Dissolved the marriage and granted a decree of divorce on the ground of irretrievable breakdown
- Directed the appellant to pay ₹15,000 per month as composite maintenance to the respondent and their minor son
No order was made as to costs. The Registry was directed to draw the decree accordingly.
