Supreme Court on Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage and Article 142 Powers.

Headnote:

The Supreme Court dissolved a marriage that had subsisted only on paper for over two decades, holding that a prolonged period of separation without any possibility of reconciliation amounts to cruelty and constitutes irretrievable breakdown of marriage. Exercising its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, the Court set aside the High Court judgment and granted divorce, clarifying that the power to do “complete justice” is not fettered by the doctrine of fault and blame.

Background:

• The marriage between the appellant-husband and respondent-wife was solemnized on 4 August 2000 at Shillong.

• Both parties were working as Development Officers with the Life Insurance Corporation of India and were acquainted prior to marriage.

• The respondent-wife alleged that she was pressured by the appellant and his family to give up her job, despite her responsibility towards her dependent family members.

• She left the matrimonial home in 2001 due to alleged ill-treatment.

• The appellant-husband first filed for divorce in 2003, which was dismissed as premature; a subsequent suit filed in 2007 resulted in a decree of divorce on the ground of desertion in 2010.

• The Gauhati High Court (Shillong Bench), by judgment dated 13 April 2011, reversed the decree, holding that desertion was not proved and that the wife had reasonable cause to live separately.

• The husband appealed to the Supreme Court.

Issues for Consideration

• Whether long separation without reconciliation constitutes cruelty and irretrievable breakdown of marriage.

• Whether the Supreme Court can dissolve the marriage under Article 142 despite the wife’s opposition and absence of a statutory ground.

Court’s Observations:

• The parties have been living separately for nearly 24 years, with matrimonial litigation pending for over 22 years, and there is no child from the wedlock.

• Despite mediation efforts, reconciliation has failed and is no longer a realistic possibility.

• Long and continuous separation without hope of reunion amounts to cruelty to both spouses.

• Strongly held and incompatible views of spouses, coupled with refusal to accommodate each other over a prolonged period, constitute mental cruelty.

• An unworkable marriage that has ceased to exist in substance should not be continued as a legal fiction.

• The Court reiterated that irretrievable breakdown, though not a statutory ground, can be the basis for dissolution under Article 142.

• The doctrine of fault and blame does not fetter the Court’s power to do complete justice in exceptional matrimonial cases.

Reliance on Precedents

• Naveen Kohli v. Neelu Kohli (2006) – Long separation indicates a marriage beyond repair.

• Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh (2007) – Prolonged separation may itself amount to mental cruelty.

• Rakesh Raman v. Kavita (2023) – Marriage surviving only on paper constitutes cruelty.

• Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan (2023) – Article 142 power not limited by fault theory.

• Pradeep Bhardwaj v. Priya (2025) and Kumari Rekha v. Shambhu Saran Paswan (2025) – Irretrievable breakdown justifies dissolution under Article 142.

Decision:

• The Supreme Court held that the marriage had irretrievably broken down and there was no sanctity left in continuing the marital tie.

• Exercising powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, the Court dissolved the marriage.

• The High Court judgment dated 13 April 2011 was set aside.

• The decree of divorce granted by the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Judicial), Shillong, was restored.

Legal Provisions Discussed:

• Article 142(1), Constitution of India – Power of the Supreme Court to do complete justice.

• Section 13, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Grounds for divorce, including cruelty and desertion.

Citation: 2025 INSC 1436

Case: Nayan Bhowmick v. Aparna Chakraborty

Court: Supreme Court of India

Coram: Justice Manmohan & Justice Joymalya Bagchi

Date of Decision: 15 December 2025

Civil Appeal No.: 5167 of 2012