Failed Marriage is Not the End: Supreme Court’s Progressive Ruling

In a judgment delivered on February 11, 2025, a Supreme Court bench comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan dissolved the marriage of a young couple, emphasizing that a failed marriage does not signify the end of life for either party. The Court exercised its special powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to grant the divorce and terminate all pending legal proceedings between the parties of failed marriage. This blog analyzes the Supreme Court’s ruling on dissolving a failed marriage using Article 142, emphasizing irretrievable breakdown as a ground for divorce.

Background of the Case of Failed Marriage

The case involved a young couple whose marriage had turned into a prolonged legal battle. They were married in May 2020, but their relationship quickly deteriorated. Within a year, the wife left the matrimonial home, alleging harassment by her husband and in-laws. This led to a series of legal disputes between the couple and their respective families.

The wife initiated criminal proceedings, including a case under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which deals with cruelty against a woman by her husband or his relatives. She also filed a case under the Domestic Violence Act, claiming emotional and physical abuse. In response, the husband and his family approached the courts, filing multiple counterclaims, including civil suits for damages and requests for case transfers.

Over time, the legal conflict escalated, with 17 different cases pending across various courts in Maharashtra and Madhya Pradesh. These cases included criminal complaints, maintenance claims, and defamation suits. Despite repeated attempts at reconciliation, both parties remained firm in their stance, leading to a situation where the marriage was beyond repair.

After reviewing the circumstances, the Supreme Court observed that prolonging litigation would serve no meaningful purpose and that both individuals should be allowed to move forward with their lives. Recognizing that this was a failed marriage, the Court decided to dissolve the union using its extraordinary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution.

Case Reasoning and Supreme Court’s Observations in Failed Marriage

In its judgment, the Supreme Court provided several key reasons for dissolving the marriage:

Recognition of Irretrievable Breakdown: The Supreme Court observed that the couple’s failed marriage had no chance of revival. The multiple legal cases and ongoing disputes proved that the relationship was beyond repair. The Court stated that keeping such a marriage legally valid would serve no purpose.
Youth and Future Prospects: Emphasizing the young age of both individuals, the Court highlighted the importance of allowing them to move forward with their lives. The bench stated, “The parties are young. They must look ahead towards their future. If the marriage has failed, that is not the end of life for both. They must look ahead and start a new life.” The ruling emphasized that being stuck in a dead marriage would only cause emotional distress.
Avoidance of Prolonged Litigation: The Court noted that continuing with the numerous pending litigations would serve no constructive purpose and would only prolong the suffering of both parties. By dissolving the failed marriage, the Court aimed to put an end to all related disputes, allowing both individuals to focus on their future.
Termination of All Pending Proceedings: By dissolving the marriage, the Court aimed to conclusively end all ongoing legal disputes between the parties. The judgment explicitly stated that all pending proceedings between the parties stand terminated, even if not listed, to ensure both individuals can move forward without the burden of unresolved litigations.
Exercise of Extraordinary Powers Under Article 142: The Court invoked its special powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to grant the divorce. This provision allows the Supreme Court to pass any decree necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it, enabling the dissolution of a marriage in situations where traditional legal grounds may not suffice.
Precedent of Recognizing Irretrievable Breakdown as Grounds for Divorce: The Court referred to its earlier rulings that recognized irretrievable breakdown of marriage as a valid ground for divorce, even though it is not explicitly mentioned in the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. This approach emphasizes the need to dissolve failed marriages that are beyond repair to serve public interest and allow individuals to move forward with their lives.

Legal Provisions Applied in Failed Marriage

Article 142 of the Indian Constitution: The Supreme Court used its special powers under Article 142 to grant the divorce. This article allows the Court to pass any order necessary to ensure “complete justice” in a case. Since the couple’s failed marriage had reached an irreparable stage, the Court used this power to dissolve it, even though “irretrievable breakdown of marriage” is not listed as a ground for divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955: This section lays out the legal grounds for divorce, such as cruelty, desertion, and adultery. While failed marriage due to irretrievable breakdown is not explicitly mentioned, courts have, in some cases, granted divorces when reconciliation is impossible. The Supreme Court considered the intent of this law while exercising its constitutional powers.
Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): The wife had filed a case under Section 498A, which deals with cruelty by the husband or his relatives. Such cases are meant to protect women from harassment in a failed marriage, but prolonged legal battles can sometimes become a burden on both parties. The Supreme Court’s ruling ensured that all such cases were closed following the dissolution of marriage.
Domestic Violence Act, 2005: The wife had also initiated proceedings under this Act, which provides relief to victims of domestic violence. However, since the failed marriage was being dissolved, the Court ruled that continuing with multiple litigations would serve no real purpose.
Precedents on Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage: The Supreme Court referred to past judgments where it had granted divorces in cases of irretrievable breakdown, even though there is no specific provision for it under the Hindu Marriage Act. This reinforces the idea that courts can intervene in failed marriages when it is clear that there is no possibility of reconciliation.

Key Supreme Court Precedents on Divorce and Marital Breakdown

The Supreme Court of India has, in several notable cases, exercised its extraordinary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to dissolve marriages on the grounds of irretrievable breakdown, even though this is not explicitly recognized as a ground for divorce under existing laws.

R. Srinivas Kumar v. R. Shametha (2019): In this case, the Supreme Court dissolved the marriage by exercising its inherent powers under Article 142, recognizing that there is no statutory law for irretrievable breakdown of marriage as a ground for divorce in India. The Court noted that the marriage was “totally unworkable, emotionally dead, beyond salvage and has broken down irretrievably.”
Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan (2023): A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court held that the Court can dissolve a marriage on the ground of irretrievable breakdown by exercising its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution. The Bench emphasized that while irretrievable breakdown is not a ground for divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act, the Supreme Court’s extraordinary powers allow it to grant divorce in such cases to do complete justice between the parties.
Naveen Kohli v. Neelu Kohli (2006): In this case, the Supreme Court observed that the marriage had broken down irretrievably and recommended that the legislature consider adding “irretrievable breakdown of marriage” as a ground for divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The Court emphasized that when a marriage is beyond repair, it is better to dissolve it to enable the parties to move on with their lives.
Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh (2007): Here, the Supreme Court elaborated on what constitutes mental cruelty in a marriage. The Court acknowledged that prolonged separation and a marriage beyond repair could amount to mental cruelty, thereby providing grounds for divorce. The judgment provided comprehensive guidelines on assessing mental cruelty in matrimonial cases.

Remarks in the Judgment

The judgment reflects the Supreme Court’s commitment to resolving failed marriages amicably, ensuring that both individuals can move forward.
By invoking Article 142, the Court exercised its extraordinary powers to prevent unnecessary litigation and emotional distress.
The decision emphasizes the importance of youth and future prospects, ensuring that a failed marriage does not hinder personal growth or happiness.
The ruling acknowledges that when a marriage is unsalvageable, courts must take practical legal measures to dissolve it.
This approach benefits not only the individuals involved but also the judicial system by reducing the burden of prolonged legal battles.
The case sets a significant precedent in matrimonial law, reinforcing that the end of a marriage is not the end of life for the people involved.
The judgment promotes a forward-looking perspective, allowing individuals to move on and start anew.

Implications of the Judgment

Recognition of Irretrievable Breakdown: The Supreme Court reinforced that a failed marriage with no chance of reconciliation should not be prolonged unnecessarily.
Use of Article 142 for Divorce: The ruling reaffirmed that the Court can dissolve marriages under Article 142 when traditional legal grounds are insufficient.
Encouragement of Legislative Reforms: The judgment aligns with previous recommendations (like Naveen Kohli v. Neelu Kohli) urging lawmakers to introduce irretrievable breakdown as a statutory ground for divorce.
Prevention of Prolonged Litigation: By dissolving the marriage and terminating all related cases, the Court set a precedent for reducing the burden on the judicial system.
Psychological and Emotional Relief: The decision recognized that forcing individuals to remain in a failed marriage causes unnecessary stress and hampers personal growth.
Influence on Future Matrimonial Disputes: The ruling may encourage more couples in similar circumstances to seek a resolution through amicable legal intervention rather than prolonged litigation.

Final Thoughts

This Supreme Court judgment is a crucial step toward recognizing irretrievable breakdown of marriage as a valid ground for divorce, even though it is not explicitly stated in current laws. By invoking Article 142, the Court ensured that individuals in a failed marriage are not burdened with prolonged litigation and can move forward with their lives. The ruling reinforces the need for legislative reforms to formally include irretrievable breakdown as a ground for divorce under Indian law. It reflects a progressive and compassionate approach, prioritizing personal well-being and emotional stability. Ultimately, the verdict upholds the principle that the end of a marriage is not the end of life but an opportunity for a fresh start.