A Failed Marriage Beyond Revival, Irretrievable Breakdown Is Justified: Supreme Court

Picture of Name

Name

Recently, the Supreme Court has granted a decree of divorce under Article 142 of the Constitution, holding that the marriage between a couple living separately for the past 13 years had completely broken down. The Court noted that the parties had separated merely 65 days after their marriage and, thereafter, instituted more than 40 civil and criminal proceedings against each other, making it evident that no real possibility of preserving the matrimonial relationship survives.

The Court clarified that,

“It is in the interest of the society that the marriages, as far as possible, should be maintained. If there is failure in the efforts for reconciliation and it is found that marriage has been wrecked beyond the scope of salvage, it is in the interest of all concerned to recognize that fact and dissolve the marriage, otherwise the litigation, sufferings by all the parties and the miseries may continue.”

The order was passed by a Division Bench comprising Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice Manmohan while disposing of a transfer petition filed by Neha Lal. Before the Supreme Court, the wife had sought dissolution of marriage by invoking Article 142 along with a transfer petition. She alleged that she was compelled to leave the matrimonial home soon after the marriage due to dowry harassment and cruelty, following which prolonged litigation ensued. The husband, on the other hand, alleged that the wife had filed false and malicious cases, thereby ruining his life, and had moved applications alleging perjury on account of false statements made on affidavit.

Upon examining the record, the Court found that more than 40 civil and criminal cases had been filed between the parties before courts in Delhi, Ghaziabad, Lucknow and Allahabad. Several of these cases had already been disposed of, while some remained pending. The Court observed that the continuing litigation clearly showed that the parties had treated courts as a battlefield, resulting in an avoidable burden on the justice delivery system.

In this backdrop, the principal issue before the Court was whether it could, in exercise of powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, grant divorce in a case where the marriage had completely and irretrievably broken down.

While addressing this issue, the Supreme Court relied upon the Constitution Bench judgment in Shilpa Sailesh vs Varun Sreenivasan and held that where a marriage has become “completely failed and beyond revival”, the Supreme Court is empowered to grant divorce to do complete justice, even if one of the parties opposes such dissolution.

Towards the conclusion, the Court observed that while young couples often require time to understand each other and adjust to matrimonial life, in the present case the level of tolerance had diminished and ego had taken over. The differences had grown so deep that the parties could live together only for 65 days, and litigation began immediately thereafter.

In such circumstances, the Court observed that,

“From the facts of the case as noticed above, we find this to be a clear case of irretrievable breakdown of marriage where the parties do not intend to live together and cohabitate. Rather they may not be able to reconcile seeing the level of bitterness generated with the passage of time.”

The Court further examined that,

“It may be impossible now to put the clock back and live together after forgetting the bitterness, which has been created in last more than a decade.”

Accordingly, the Supreme Court dissolved the marriage and clarified that since the wife had not claimed any permanent alimony, all matrimonial claims stood settled. All pending cases arising out of the matrimonial dispute were directed to be closed, except those relating to allegations of perjury, which were ordered to continue independently. The Court also imposed a token cost of ₹10,000 each on both parties and directed them not to indulge in any further litigation relating to their matrimonial dispute.

Case: Neha Lal vs Abhishek Kumar

Date of Order: 20.01.2026

See order: Neha Lal vs Abhishek Kumar

Related Post