Supreme Court Dissolves Marriage Under Article 142 Citing Irretrievable Breakdown After Prolonged Separation

A bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Manmohan heard an appeal against the Patna High Court's dismissal of a wife's petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and the upholding of a Family Court decree under Section 9 in favour of the husband. The appeal challenged the High Court judgment and decree dated 4 June 2020 in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 501 of 2013 arising from matrimonial proceedings from Munger Family Court.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and exercised its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to dissolve the marriage on the ground of irretrievable breakdown. The Court noted the “prolonged period of separation and the multiple failed attempts at reconciliation,” and held that there was no real prospect of reunion between the parties, both of whom were in their fifties. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “We need not burden this judgment with what the child of the parties answered while responding to the other questions posed to her by both of us. Suffice to record, we believe that it is a fit case for us to invoke powers conferred on us by Article 142 of the Constitution of India and to dissolve the marriage between the parties on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage. We are persuaded to do so, having considered the prolonged period of separation and the multiple failed attempts at reconciliation, which clearly indicate that there is no possibility of reunion, as well as their age (both are quinquagenarian).” The Court also recorded that no order on alimony was necessary as the appellant-wife had no claim for maintenance.

Background

The parties were married on 24 April 1999 and had a daughter on 7 June 2001. The record showed separation for at least twelve years; the wife contended separation since 2008, while the husband asserted separation since 2012. The wife originally petitioned for divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act; the Family Court dismissed her petition on 4 June 2013 and allowed the husband’s petition under Section 9 on 11 June 2013. The High Court affirmed those orders in June 2020. On appeal, the Supreme Court considered factual material, the long duration of separation and failed reconciliation attempts, and engaged directly with the parties’ adult daughter by virtual interaction to assess family circumstances. Counsel for the wife argued that acrimony and a complete breakdown warranted dissolution; counsel for the husband urged preservation of the marriage, stressing the child's matrimonial prospects and asserting that the wife had abandoned the marriage after securing public employment. The Court recorded that the daughter, then a second-year MBBS student and approaching marriageable age, was mature to make her own decisions and that the husband had had no contact with the child during the period of separation. The Court referred to the Constitution Bench decision in Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan (2023) while noting that, even where statutory grounds were contested, the Court could apply Article 142 where satisfied that the marriage had irretrievably broken down. The Supreme Court dissolved the marriage by decree, directed that the decree be drawn up, made no order on alimony, and allowed the appeal to bring finality to protracted litigation.

Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3489 OF 2025 Case Title: Kumari Rekha v. Shambhu Saran Paswan Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Ms. Nivedita Nirvikar, learned senior counsel For the Respondent(s): Mr. Ashok Kumar Choudhary, learned senior counsel