“No Purpose Served in Continuing a Dead Marriage” - Supreme Court Dissolves Marriage Using Article 142 After 15 Years of Separation

“Irretrievable Breakdown Proven, Matrimonial Bond Is Fictional”, Supreme Court of India exercised its extraordinary constitutional powers under Article 142 to dissolve a marriage that had completely broken down irretrievably, despite the High Court’s refusal to grant a divorce. The judgment in A. Ranjithkumar v. E. Kavitha underscores that courts must not insist on the continuance of a marriage “when the matrimonial bond has become a legal fiction.”

Reversing the Madras High Court’s judgment dated 24 August 2018, the apex court noted that the parties had lived separately since 2010, that reconciliation had failed, and that the husband had remarried in 2017. While the High Court found that the acts of cruelty alleged were attributable to the wife’s father and not the wife herself, the Supreme Court held that such a technical view cannot outweigh the reality of total marital breakdown.

The marriage between the parties was solemnized on 15 February 2009. After relocating to the United States, they had a child in April 2010, but shortly thereafter began living separately.

On 26 September 2012, the husband filed a petition seeking divorce on the grounds of cruelty and adultery under Sections 13(1)(ia) and (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The Family Court, by judgment dated 17 October 2016, granted divorce on grounds of cruelty, though it found no merit in the adultery allegation.

The wife filed an appeal before the Madras High Court, which allowed her plea on 24 August 2018, observing:

“The principal instance of cruelty accepted by the Family Court was the rude utterances of the wife’s father. Such conduct, even if established, cannot be attributed to the wife herself.”

The High Court, therefore, set aside the divorce decree, prompting the husband to approach the Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition No. 31247 of 2018.

Was the High Court right in reversing the divorce decree based on third-party conduct?

The Supreme Court did not disturb the High Court’s reasoning that cruelty by a third party (in this case, the wife’s father) could not form a standalone ground for divorce under Section 13(1)(ia).

However, the Court refused to stop there, pointing to the undeniable fact of prolonged separation and failed reconciliation:

“It is evident that there is no possibility of reconciliation between the parties. They have been living separately since 2010, for nearly 15 years... There is no vestige of matrimonial relationship between them.”

The Court also took note of the husband’s second marriage in March 2017, stating:

“Neither party has shown any inclination to resolve their differences. In these circumstances, we see no purpose in continuing the legal relationship between the parties. The marriage has irretrievably broken down.”

Can divorce be granted in the absence of proven fault if the marriage has collapsed?

Yes, said the Court — and this is where it invoked Article 142 of the Constitution to do “complete justice”:

“We are of the considered view that this is a fit case for granting divorce by invoking our powers under Article 142 of the Constitution. Accordingly, the marriage solemnized on 15.02.2009 stands dissolved.”

The judgment aligns with the evolving jurisprudence wherein irretrievable breakdown of marriage, even if not a statutory ground, has been repeatedly accepted by the Supreme Court to avoid compelling parties to remain tied in name only.

Permanent Alimony: ₹1.25 Crore Ordered as Lump Sum Support

Taking note of the fact that the husband had failed to provide financial support for years, the Court awarded ₹1,25,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore Twenty-Five Lakhs only) as permanent alimony to the wife and their son.

“Considering the financial status of both parties and the circumstances of the case, we direct the appellant to pay a sum of ₹1,25,00,000/- as permanent alimony, and all other claims of the wife would stand satisfied.”

This amount is to be paid in five equal quarterly instalments of ₹25,00,000 each, starting 15 September 2025 and ending 15 September 2026.

Notably, the Court imposed a strict condition to enforce compliance: “In the event of any default in payment of any instalment, this order shall stand recalled, and any amount already paid by the appellant-husband shall stand forfeited.”

This judgment is a clear reaffirmation of the Supreme Court’s liberal and purposive approach toward resolving long-standing matrimonial disputes where continuance of marriage serves no constructive purpose. While the statutory grounds for divorce remain strict, the Court has once again shown its willingness to invoke Article 142 to cut through the legal deadlock, especially where the human reality of marital collapse is evident.

“When the marriage has broken down irretrievably and the parties are living in a state of emotional and physical separation, forcing them to continue the legal bond would be injustice masquerading as law.”

The ruling not only grants the long-denied relief to the husband but also ensures financial security for the wife and child, thereby striking a balanced justice between both sides.

Date of Decision: 14 August 2025