The Supreme Court has dissolved a marriage exercising its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, observing that keeping parties tied to a marriage that has effectively ceased to exist serves no useful purpose. The Bench, comprising Justice Manmohan and Justice Joymalya Bagchi, set aside the judgment of the Gauhati High Court and restored the decree of divorce, noting that the “long period of separation without any hope for reconciliation amounts to cruelty to both the parties.”
Background of the Case
The appeal challenged a judgment dated April 13, 2011, passed by the Gauhati High Court (Shillong Bench). The High Court had set aside a decree of divorce granted by the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Judicial), Shillong, on March 9, 2010.
The marriage between the parties was solemnized on August 4, 2000, at Shillong. Both parties were working as Development Officers under the Life Insurance Corporation of India Ltd. According to the respondent-wife, despite knowing the nature of her job, the appellant-husband and his family demanded she quit her job. She alleged that due to ill-treatment, she was compelled to leave the matrimonial home in 2001.
In 2003, the husband instituted a suit for divorce, which was dismissed as premature in 2006. Subsequently, on November 29, 2007, he filed a fresh suit under Section 13(1)(i-a) and (i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, alleging desertion. The Trial Court dissolved the marriage in 2010, holding that the husband had proved his case of desertion. However, the High Court reversed this decision in 2011, observing that the wife had no intent to permanently forsake the husband and that the husband had not made sufficient reconciliation attempts.
Arguments of the Parties
Learned counsel for the appellant-husband submitted that the parties had been living separately since November 29, 2001, and there was no possibility of reconciliation. He highlighted that although both parties worked in the same branch of LIC, they did not interact. He argued that the marriage had irretrievably broken down. It was further submitted that the respondent-wife did not reply to letters sent by the husband in 2002 requesting her to join the matrimonial home.
Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-wife contended that she did not leave the matrimonial home with the intent to desert but was forced to leave due to “constant abuse and humiliation.” He argued that the husband’s rush to file for divorce in 2003 indicated his intent to end the relationship. Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Savitri Pandey vs. Prem Chandra Pandey (2002), he submitted that marriage cannot be dissolved merely on the averments that it has broken down. He stated that the wife continued to affirm the marriage and was willing to resume matrimonial life.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
The Supreme Court noted that the matrimonial litigation had commenced within two years of marriage and had been pending for 22 years. The parties had been living separately for 24 years with no children from the wedlock. The Court observed that despite efforts, including a referral to mediation in 2012, no reconciliation had occurred.
The Bench observed:
“In a multitude of cases, this Court has had the opportunity to deal with situations where parties have been living separately for a considerable time and it has been consistently held that long period of separation without any hope for reconciliation amounts to cruelty to both the parties.”
Referring to the decision in Rakesh Raman vs. Kavita (2023), the Court stated that where parties have lived separately for the better part of their lives, the marriage is only on paper.
Regarding the conduct of the parties, the Court remarked:
“In the case at hand, spouses have strongly held views with regard to the approach towards matrimonial life and they have refused to accommodate each other for a long period of time. Consequently, their conduct amounts to cruelty to each other. This Court is of the view that in matrimonial matters involving two individuals, it is not for the society or for the Court to sit in judgment over which spouses’ approach is correct or not. It is their strongly held views and their refusal to accommodate each other that amounts to cruelty to one another.”
Citing the Constitution Bench judgment in Shilpa Sailesh vs. Varun Sreenivasan (2023), the Court reiterated that its power to do “complete justice” under Article 142(1) is not fettered by the doctrine of fault and blame. The Court held that keeping the parties tied forever to a marriage which has ceased to exist serves no purpose.
Addressing the sanctity of marriage, the Bench observed:
“This Court is conscious of the view that approach of the Courts should be to preserve the sanctity of marriage and the Court should be reluctant to dissolve the marriage at the mere asking of one of the parties. But, in the present case, the parties have lived separately for far too long a period of time and there is no sanctity left in the marriage. Also, rapprochement is not in the realm of possibility.”
Decision
The Supreme Court concluded that the marriage between the parties had irretrievably broken down. The Court held that the pendency of matrimonial litigation for a long duration only leads to perpetuity of marriage on paper.
The Bench ordered:
“Consequently, this Court is of the view that marriage between the parties has irretrievably broken down and, therefore, in exercise of its power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India dissolves the marriage between the parties.”
The appeal was allowed, the judgment of the High Court was set aside, and the decree of divorce granted by the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Judicial), Shillong, was upheld.
Case Details:
- Case Title: Nayan Bhowmick v. Aparna Chakraborty
- Case No: Civil Appeal No. 5167 of 2012
- Citation: 2025 INSC 1436
- Coram: Justice Manmohan and Justice Joymalya Bagchi
