Once parties agree and reconciliation is impossible, a fault-based decree is unnecessary: Supreme Court Sets Aside Divorce on Desertion

“To do complete justice, we deem it appropriate to dissolve the marriage on consent, not fault,” In a significant exercise of its extraordinary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court of India on December 18, 2025, set aside a decree of divorce granted on the ground of desertion and instead dissolved the marriage by mutual consent, following a consensual settlement between the parties. The ruling came in the case of Bhagyashree Bisi v. Animesh Padhee, arising out of a matrimonial dispute between a professionally employed couple who had been living separately since 2020.

The two-judge Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta noted that although the Family Court and the Orissa High Court had both granted divorce on the ground of desertion, the appellant-wife had contested that finding. However, during the hearing before the Supreme Court, both parties unequivocally agreed to dissolution of the marriage by mutual consent. The Court accordingly invoked its plenary jurisdiction under Article 142 to substitute the fault-based decree with one of consent, thereby preventing further litigation.

“Once parties agree and reconciliation is impossible, a fault-based decree is unnecessary,” says Supreme Court

The appellant-wife had challenged the Family Court’s conclusion that she had deserted her husband. She maintained that her departure from the matrimonial home in January 2020 was due to hostile behavior and financial demands from the respondent, and that her subsequent relocation to the United States was work-related, not an act of abandonment.

On the other hand, the respondent-husband did not insist on maintaining the ground of desertion and agreed to dissolution by mutual consent, without prejudice. Recognizing the irretrievable breakdown of the marriage and the futility of further adjudication, the Supreme Court held:

“Efforts at reconciliation have not yielded any positive outcome, and both parties have expressed their unequivocal desire to bring the marital relationship to an end. In the circumstances, the marriage has irretrievably broken down, and there remains no scope for restoration of the matrimonial bond.”

Accordingly, the Court ruled:

“To do complete justice between the parties, the decree on the ground of desertion is set aside. As agreed, we deem it appropriate to dissolve the marriage by exercising our powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India on the consent of the parties.”

Permanent Alimony of ₹25 Lakhs Ordered as One-Time Settlement; All Pending Cases to Be Closed

Both the appellant and the respondent were working professionals, and the Court noted that neither was financially dependent on the other. Yet, to ensure a clean break and complete settlement of all past, present, and potential claims arising out of the matrimonial relationship, the Court directed a one-time payment of ₹25 lakhs as full and final settlement.

“Taking into account the overall facts and circumstances of the case, including the financial status of the parties... a sum of ₹25 lakhs would constitute a just and reasonable amount towards full and final settlement, including permanent alimony.”

The amount is to be deposited by the respondent-husband with the Registry of the Supreme Court within two months, after which the appellant-wife may withdraw it. The Registry was also directed to draw up a decree of divorce upon proof of payment.

Importantly, the Court made it clear that:

“Upon compliance with the above, any pending civil or criminal proceedings between the parties arising out of the matrimonial dispute shall stand closed.”

Article 142 Powers Used to Preserve Dignity and Avoid Adversarial Labels

This judgment reaffirms the Supreme Court’s wide constitutional powers under Article 142, particularly in matrimonial disputes, to avoid unnecessary stigma and foster dignified closure. Instead of sustaining a decree of divorce based on allegations of desertion—which were disputed—the Court facilitated an amicable, respectful dissolution of marriage in a non-adversarial framework.

The ruling reflects a progressive judicial approach that prioritizes finality, dignity, and fairness, especially in situations where marriages have irretrievably broken down, and litigation only prolongs acrimony.

Date of Decision: December 18, 2025