Supreme Court Allows Divorce Under Article 142, Finds Irretrievable Breakdown After 24 Years of Separation

A bench of Justices Manmohan and Joymalya Bagchi heard an appeal by a husband challenging the Gauhati High Court (Shillong Bench) judgment that set aside a trial court decree dissolving the parties’ marriage on the ground of desertion. The question before the Supreme Court was whether long separation and failed reconciliation justified dissolution of marriage and whether the Court could exercise its power under Article 142 of the Constitution to grant a divorce.

The Court allowed the appeal, held that the marriage had irretrievably broken down after about 24 years of separation, and exercised its power under Article 142 to dissolve the marriage. The judgment noted that prolonged estrangement and the parties’ persistent refusal to accommodate each other amounted to cruelty and that continued maintenance of a formal marital tie would be unjustified. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “In any event, this Court in exercise of power to do ‘complete justice’ under Article 142(1) of the Constitution of India has the discretion to dissolve the marriage on the ground of irretrievable breakdown.” The Court recorded that mediation had failed and that no efforts to reconcile the parties had been made since the unsuccessful mediation report of April 2012. It therefore concluded that “no useful purpose shall be served by keeping the matrimonial litigation pending” and dissolved the marriage, set aside the High Court order and upheld the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Judicial), Shillong’s decree insofar as it granted divorce.

Background

The parties, both employed as Development Officers with the Life Insurance Corporation of India, married on August 4, 2000. The wife alleged continuous ill-treatment by the husband and his family and said she was compelled to leave the matrimonial home on November 29, 2001; she asserted she had to continue working to support her dependent mother and siblings. The husband initially filed for divorce in 2003; that suit was dismissed as premature in 2006 and a subsequent appeal was withdrawn with liberty to file afresh. He filed MAT Divorce Suit No.13(T) of 2007 under Section 13(1)(i-a) and (i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act claiming desertion; the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Judicial), Shillong granted a decree of divorce on March 9, 2010, finding desertion proved.

The respondent-wife successfully appealed to the High Court, which on April 13, 2011 allowed her appeal and set aside the trial court decree, holding inter alia that “there is no intentional permanent forsaking and abandonment of one spouse by the other” and that the husband had not made sufficient reconciliatory efforts. The husband challenged that order before the Supreme Court.

Before the Supreme Court, the husband asserted continued separation since 2001 and absence of reconciliation despite mediation and other efforts; he pointed to correspondence the wife had received inviting her to return but alleged no reply. The wife emphasised that she had been forced to leave because of pressure to give up employment and humiliation by the husband’s family, and argued the husband’s earlier rush to court evidenced lack of bona fide intention to reconcile. The Supreme Court reviewed authorities including Naveen Kohli, Samar Ghosh and the Constitution Bench authority in Shilpa Sailesh and recorded that the power under Article 142 to do “complete justice” could be used where a marriage had become a legal fiction and irretrievably broken down. The Court found that the parties had been living apart for about twenty-four years, mediation had failed, there were no children of the marriage, and continued litigation served no useful purpose. It therefore concluded that the spouses’ entrenched, incompatible positions and prolonged separation amounted to cruelty to each other and justified dissolution. The appeal was allowed and the High Court order was set aside; the trial court’s decree of divorce was upheld and, in exercise of Article 142, the Court dissolved the marriage.

Case Details: Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5167 OF 2012 (2025 INSC 1436) Case Title: Nayan Bhowmick v. Aparna Chakraborty Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Not indicated in the judgment For the Respondent(s): Not indicated in the judgment