65 Days of Marriage, 13 Years of Litigation: Supreme Court Dissolves Marriage Citing Irretrievable Breakdown

Background of the Case

In a significant ruling highlighting the judiciary’s concern over prolonged matrimonial litigation, the Supreme Court of India dissolved a marriage that lasted only 65 days, where the spouses have lived separately for over 13 years and were entangled in more than 40 civil and criminal cases against each other.

The marriage was solemnised on January 28, 2012. Within 65 days, the wife left the matrimonial home alleging cruelty by the husband and his family members. Since then, the parties have remained estranged, litigating across courts in Delhi, Allahabad, Ghaziabad and Lucknow, effectively turning the judicial system into a forum for sustained personal conflict.

---

Proceedings Before the Supreme Court

The matter came before a Bench of Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice Manmohan. The wife approached the Supreme Court invoking Article 142 of the Constitution, seeking:

• Dissolution of marriage on the ground of irretrievable breakdown

• Quashing of multiple pending civil and criminal proceedings

• No claim for alimony or permanent maintenance

The Court independently verified the pendency of cases from various courts before proceeding.

The husband, appearing in person, opposed the divorce, arguing that:

• He did not consent to dissolution

• The wife had misrepresented facts

• His life had been “spoiled” due to false litigation

• Applications alleging perjury were pending against the wife

---

Supreme Court’s Key Observations

The Court rejected the husband’s objections and held that consent is not determinative where a marriage has collapsed beyond repair.

The Bench observed:

“They may not have been made for each other… 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.”

The Court concluded that the level of bitterness had reached a point where reconciliation was impossible, making it a clear case of irretrievable breakdown of marriage.

---

Invocation of Article 142: Constitutional Basis

Article 142 of the Constitution of India

Article 142 empowers the Supreme Court to pass any decree or order necessary for doing “complete justice” in any cause or matter pending before it.

In this case, the Court invoked Article 142 to:

• Dissolve the marriage despite lack of mutual consent

• Bring a final quietus to prolonged litigation

• Prevent further abuse of judicial process

The Court emphasised that ordinary matrimonial remedies under statutory law were inadequate to resolve a dispute that had festered for over a decade.

---

Statutory Framework: Absence of Irretrievable Breakdown as a Ground

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

Notably, irretrievable breakdown of marriage is not a statutory ground for divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

Existing grounds include:

• Cruelty (Section 13(1)(ia))

• Desertion (Section 13(1)(ib))

• Adultery, mental disorder, conversion, etc.

Despite repeated recommendations by the Law Commission of India, Parliament has not incorporated irretrievable breakdown as an independent ground. Consequently, only the Supreme Court, through Article 142, can grant divorce on this basis.

---

Judicial Precedents Relied Upon

The judgment aligns with a consistent line of Supreme Court precedents, including:

1. Naveen Kohli v. Neelu Kohli (2006)

The Court recommended legislative recognition of irretrievable breakdown after observing extreme bitterness and prolonged litigation.

2. Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh (2007)

Expanded the understanding of mental cruelty and acknowledged prolonged separation as a relevant factor.

3. Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan (2023)

A Constitution Bench clarified that the Supreme Court can dissolve marriages on the ground of irretrievable breakdown under Article 142, even without consent, provided:

• Mediation efforts have failed

• Parties have lived separately for a substantial period

• Continuation of marriage serves no purpose

The present case squarely fits within these parameters.

---

Court’s Concern Over Misuse of Judicial Process

The Bench expressed strong concern over the weaponisation of criminal law in matrimonial disputes, observing that courts must not become battlegrounds for settling personal scores.

It warned that:

• Prolonged criminal litigation extinguishes chances of reconciliation

• False allegations are increasingly common

• Evidence is sometimes manufactured, a concern amplified in the age of artificial intelligence

The Court remarked that such litigation “chokes the judicial system” and diverts resources from genuine disputes.

---

Emphasis on Mediation and Early Dispute Resolution

The judgment underscored the importance of pre-litigation mediation, particularly in matrimonial disputes involving:

• Maintenance

• Domestic violence complaints

• Marital discord

The Court cautioned that even a brief arrest in matrimonial cases often becomes a point of no return, permanently damaging prospects of settlement.

---

Final Directions of the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court:

• Dissolved the marriage under Article 142

• Directed that all pending cases between the parties stand disposed of

• Allowed perjury-related applications to continue on merits to protect the “stream of justice”

• Restrained both parties from initiating further litigation related to the marriage

• Imposed costs of ₹10,000 each, payable to the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association

---

Conclusion

This judgment reinforces the Supreme Court’s evolving approach to matrimonial disputes — prioritising finality, dignity, and judicial economy over mechanical adherence to statutory limitations.

While irretrievable breakdown remains absent from matrimonial statutes, the Court has once again used its constitutional authority to prevent marriage from becoming a lifelong legal punishment.

The ruling is also a strong signal against the misuse of courts as tools of vengeance and a renewed call for mediation, restraint, and responsible lawyering in family disputes.