Can the Supreme Court Dissolve a Marriage under Article 142 for Irretrievable Breakdown Despite One Spouse’s Objection?

LawSikho
January 21, 2026
Category: Supreme Court of India

Summary

Category	Data
Court	Supreme Court of India
Case Number	T.P.(Crl.) No.-000338 – 2025
Diary Number	18841/2025
Judge Name	HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL
Bench	HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL; HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI
Precedent Value	Binding Authority
Overrules / Affirms	Affirms precedents on Article 142 for divorce (Shilpa Sailesh)
Type of Law	Constitutional Law; Family Law
Questions of Law	Whether the Supreme Court can grant divorce under Article 142 of the Constitution for irretrievable breakdown of marriage despite the other spouse’s opposition
Ratio Decidendi	The Supreme Court’s jurisdiction under Article 142(1) includes power to dissolve marriages shattered beyond salvage. Irretrievable breakdown is not a ground under the Hindu Marriage Act but does not bar relief under Article 142. Factors to establish breakdown include length of cohabitation, period of separation (more than six years is significant), failed mediation, cumulative litigation, and absence of reconciliation prospects. Discretion must balance personal circumstances, economic status, welfare of any children, and need for complete justice.
Judgments Relied Upon	Shilpa Sailesh vs Varun Sreenivasan, 2023 INSC 468 Rakesh Raman vs Kavita, 2023 INSC 433 Vikas Kanaujia vs Sarita, 2024 INSC 517 Prakashchandra Joshi vs Kuntal Prakashchandra Joshi, 2024 INSC 55 Vineet Taneja vs Ritu Johari, 2024 (SLP Crl.) No.3667/2023
Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court	Article 142 discretionary power to do “complete justice” Paragraph 63 factors from Shilpa Sailesh for breakdown analysis Equitable balancing of parties’ backgrounds and prospects of cohabitation Need to curb matrimonial litigation as battlefield
Facts as Summarised by the Court	Marriage solemnized on 28 Jan 2012; cohabited 65 days; living apart since 2 Apr 2012 Over 40 civil and criminal proceedings filed by both parties across Delhi, Lucknow, Ghaziabad, and Allahabad Mediation centre reference on 22 Jul 2025 failed to take off No children; petitioner earns ₹1.6 lakhs per month; respondent unemployed; petitioner seeks no alimony

Practical Impact

Category	Impact
Binding On	All subordinate courts dealing with matrimonial disputes
Persuasive For	High Courts and tribunals in family and matrimonial matters
Follows	Shilpa Sailesh vs Varun Sreenivasan; Rakesh Raman vs Kavita; Vikas Kanaujia vs Sarita

What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note

Reaffirms that irretrievable breakdown of marriage is a valid ground for divorce under Article 142, even if not recognized by the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
Enumerates non-exhaustive factors (period of cohabitation, length of separation, failed mediations, cumulative impact) to establish breakdown.
Confirms power to grant divorce despite the opposing spouse’s non-agreement.
Directs a “blanket disposal” of all connected matrimonial proceedings post-divorce, except perjury-related applications under Section 340 CrPC and Section 379 BNSS.
Emphasizes verification of case lists via High Court registrars to ensure completeness before transfer or disposal.

Summary of Legal Reasoning

Petitioner invoked Article 142 seeking dissolution on irretrievable breakdown; respondent opposed.
Court relied on Shilpa Sailesh (2023) and other precedents recognizing Article 142 divorce power.
Verified extensive litigation (over 40 cases) and failed mediation efforts.
Applied paragraph 63 breakdown factors: six-year separation, no cohabitation, unsuccessful court/mediation interventions.
Held marriage beyond salvage; exercised discretion under Article 142 to dissolve union.
Ordered disposal of all pending matrimonial cases; preserved only perjury applications for merits.
Imposed costs of ₹10,000 on each party as deterrent against using courts as a battlefield.

Arguments by the Parties

Petitioner

Marriage lasted only 65 days; separated for over a decade.
Numerous frivolous litigations between the parties demonstrate irretrievable breakdown.
Invoked Article 142 to dissolve marriage; relied on Shilpa Sailesh precedent.

Respondent

Opposed divorce; alleged petitioner filed false and frivolous cases to harass him.
No mutual settlement reached; ongoing maintenance and perjury proceedings.
Petitioner financially stable; he is unemployed and contesting in-person.

Factual Background

The parties married on 28 January 2012 and separated 65 days later amid allegations of cruelty. Over the next decade they instituted more than 40 civil and criminal proceedings across Delhi, Lucknow, Ghaziabad, and Allahabad. A July 2025 referral to this Court’s Mediation Centre failed to commence. The petitioner then filed under Article 142 of the Constitution seeking divorce; the respondent resisted.

Statutory Analysis

Article 142(1), Constitution of India: power to pass “complete justice” orders, including dissolution of marriages not coverable by statutes.
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955: does not list irretrievable breakdown as a divorce ground.
Sections 340 CrPC and 379 BNSS (2023): perjury applications preserved for separate adjudication; not quashed along with matrimonial proceedings.

Procedural Innovations

Directed Registrars General of High Courts to verify parties’ litigation lists to avoid incomplete records.
Introduced “blanket disposal” of all pending and future connected matrimonial cases upon production of this order (except perjury matters).
Awarded costs to discourage exploitative use of criminal and civil courts in marital disputes.

Alert Indicators

✔ Precedent Followed