Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Court | Supreme Court of India |
| Case Number | C.A. No.-014905-014905 – 2025 |
| Diary Number | 17190/2024 |
| Judge Name | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM NATH |
| Bench | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM NATH, HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA |
| Precedent Value | Binding |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms the Supreme Court’s power under Article 142 to dissolve marriage on grounds of irretrievable breakdown |
| Type of Law | Family Law; Constitutional Law |
| Questions of Law | Whether the Supreme Court may exercise its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to dissolve a marriage on the ground of irretrievable breakdown when petitions under the Hindu Marriage Act have failed. |
| Ratio Decidendi |
In exceptional cases where a marriage has irretrievably broken down and all efforts at reconciliation—including mediation—have failed, the Supreme Court may invoke its plenary constitutional powers under Article 142 to grant a decree of divorce, despite the absence of a statutory decree under the Hindu Marriage Act. Continuation of the marital bond under such circumstances serves no meaningful purpose and only perpetuates the parties’ suffering. While exercising this power, the Court may also decide ancillary matters, including permanent alimony, by way of a one-time settlement. |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | The Court reasoned that prolonged separation of around two decades, failed reconciliation efforts (including through the Supreme Court Mediation Centre), and absence of children justified exercise of Article 142 to deliver complete justice. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
Parties married in 2003; no children; both teachers. Wife left home in 2005. Husband’s petitions under Section 9 (restitution of conjugal rights) and Section 13 (divorce for cruelty and desertion) were withdrawn and later dismissed. High Court upheld dismissal. Parties have lived separately for about twenty years with no hope of reconciliation. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All courts in India |
| Persuasive For | High Courts and trial courts |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- The Supreme Court may now be cited for the proposition that irretrievable breakdown of marriage, after exhaustive reconciliation efforts, constitutes a fit case for divorce under Article 142.
- Even when statutory divorce petitions under the Hindu Marriage Act fail, parties can invoke Article 142 to secure dissolution if separation is prolonged and mediation has failed.
- Article 142 can be used to settle ancillary relief, allowing the Court to fix permanent alimony as a one-time lump sum.
- The decision closes all civil and criminal proceedings between the parties once the decree is drawn up upon proof of alimony payment.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- Parties have lived separately for nearly twenty years; no child from the marriage and profession/status are comparable.
- All attempts at reconciliation—including a petition under Section 9 and reference to the Supreme Court Mediation Centre—have failed.
- Continuation of marriage under such prolonged estrangement would defeat the purpose of marriage and perpetuate agony.
- Article 142 confers plenary power to do “complete justice”; in exceptional matrimonial cases, this includes granting divorce for irretrievable breakdown.
- Ancillary relief: Court determines permanent alimony (₹20 lakhs) as a one-time payment and conditions the decree’s drawing-up on proof of payment.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (Husband):
- Marriage has irretrievably broken down after about twenty years of separation.
- Statutory petitions under Sections 9 and 13 HMA were unsuccessful; Article 142 should be invoked.
Respondent (Wife):
- Husband made no sincere effort to reconcile.
- Allegations of cruelty are denied; case does not warrant extraordinary Article 142 relief.
Factual Background
The parties were married in June 2003 and had no children. Both were government school teachers. In 2005 the wife left the matrimonial home and never returned. The husband’s petition under Section 9 (restitution of conjugal rights) was withdrawn; his Section 13 divorce petition on grounds of cruelty and desertion was dismissed by the trial court (August 2012) and affirmed by the High Court (February 2014). Separation has continued for nearly two decades.
Statutory Analysis
- Article 142, Constitution of India: Plenary power to do “complete justice.”
- Section 9, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955: Requisition for restitution of conjugal rights (petition withdrawn).
- Section 13, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955: Grounds for divorce (petition dismissed by trial and high courts).
Procedural Innovations
- First exercise (in this case) of Article 142 to grant a divorce decree for irretrievable marital breakdown.
- Integration of ancillary relief (permanent alimony) into Article 142 decree via one-time settlement mechanism.
Alert Indicators
- 🚨 Breaking Precedent – Establishes Article 142 as a viable route for divorce in irretrievable breakdown cases.