Supreme Court Grants Divorce On Basis Of Irretrievable Breakdown Subject To Rs.25 Lakh Payment

A bench of Justice K. Vinod Chandran and Justice B.R. Gavai heard appeals arising from parallel criminal revision and civil proceedings in which the husband challenged a maintenance order and the wife sought enhancement, and the husband challenged a trial court order that had rejected his prayer for divorce on grounds of desertion and cruelty. The appeals raised additional questions about the validity of the marriage record in relation to personal law, with the High Court having remanded aspects of the trial court's findings for further evidence.

The Court set aside the impugned orders and, invoking its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, granted a decree of divorce on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage subject to a monetary settlement. The Court directed the husband to pay Rs. 25,00,000 within six months and clarified that Rs. 2,00,000 already deposited before this Court was "over and above" that amount and was immediately withdrawable by the wife with accrued interest. The Court recorded that upon payment of the Rs. 25,00,000 the dissolution would become effective and either party could produce the judgment with proof of payment to obtain closure of any pending criminal or civil proceedings arising from the marriage. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "It was held that though grant of divorce on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage is not a matter of right, but a discretionary remedy which has to be exercised with great care and caution, keeping in mind several factors ensuring that ‘complete justice’ is done to both parties." The bench also noted that relief under Article 142 could be exercised where the marriage was "totally ‘unworkable, emotionally dead and beyond salvation’."

Background The parties were married on 27.05.1999 and lived together for roughly four months before separation. The husband maintained that the wife left him on 01.11.1999; the wife asserted that the husband evicted her on 31.10.1999. Subsequent years saw multiple litigations including criminal revisions and a civil petition for divorce filed under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The trial court treated the husband's petition principally as one for desertion and rejected it, having not addressed cruelty in depth, and it found the marriage to have been performed under Christian rites, thereby questioning the applicability of the Hindu Marriage Act. On appeal the High Court framed two issues: whether the trial court erred in limiting the case to desertion while ignoring cruelty and whether the court erred in treating the marriage as per Christian rites; the High Court found such errors, observed that proof of desertion could not be equated with proof or disproof of cruelty, and remanded for further evidence including documents concerning the husband's religious identity.

This Court applied the principles articulated in Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan regarding the scope of Article 142 to do "complete justice" in matrimonial disputes and considered whether it could grant relief even where only one spouse sought dissolution. On the facts — long separation, continuing acrimony, absence of children, both parties being educated but the wife being unlikely to re-establish a comparable livelihood at this stage — the Court concluded the marriage had irretrievably broken down. Balancing the need to sever matrimonial ties with ensuring the wife was not left without adequate means, the Court directed the monetary settlement and made the divorce conditional upon payment. The Court set aside both impugned orders, disposed of the appeals with the directions above, and ordered that the file be placed before the Court after six months to ensure compliance; pending applications, if any, were disposed.

Case Details: Case No.: 2025 INSC 195 Case Title: Gudivada Seshagiri Rao v. Gudivada Ashalatha & Anr. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Advocates not indicated in the judgment For the Respondent(s): Advocates not indicated in the judgment