When Marriage Survives Only On Paper Due To Prolonged Litigation, Better To Separate Parties : Supreme Court

Observing that courts should not perpetuate a marriage that survives only on paper, the Supreme Court on Monday (December 15) dissolved the marriage of a couple who had been living separately for the past 24 years, holding that their fundamentally different approaches to matrimonial life and prolonged refusal to accommodate each other amounted to mutual cruelty and resulted in an irretrievable breakdown of the marriage.

Referring to precedents such as Rakesh Raman vs. Kavita(2023), the Court observed that "long period of separation without any hope for reconciliation amounts to cruelty to both the parties."

“This Court is also of the view that pendency of matrimonial litigation for a long duration only leads to perpetuity of marriage on paper. It is in the best interest of parties and the society if ties are severed between parties in cases where litigation has been pending for a considerably long period of time. Consequently, this Court is of the opinion that no useful purpose shall be served by keeping the matrimonial litigation pending in Court without granting relief to the parties.”, observed a bench of Justices Manmohan and Joymlaya Bagchi, while allowing the husband's plea and restoring the divorce decree passed by the trial court.

The marriage between the Appellant-husband and Respondent-wife was solemnised in 2000. The couple separated in November 2001, barely a year after marriage, and have lived apart for nearly 24 years, with no children from the marriage.

The husband first approached the court in 2003 seeking a  divorce, but the petition was dismissed as premature. A subsequent petition filed in 2007 was allowed by the Trial Court on the ground of desertion. However, the Gauhati High Court reversed the decree in 2011, holding that the wife had reasonable cause to leave the matrimonial home and that the husband was attempting to take advantage of his own wrong, prompting the husband to appeal to the Supreme Court.

Setting aside the High Court's decision, the judgment authored by Justice Manmohan said the High Court erred in deciding the fault of the couple, noting that it is irrelevant to find fault when the couple was living separately for nearly the last 24 years, with no child from the wedlock. The Court said that the long separation between the parties itself constitutes cruelty to each other, warranting the exercise of the Court's inherent power under Article 142 of the Constitution to do complete justice by ordering the dissolution of the marriage.

“In the case at hand, spouses have strongly held views with regard to the approach towards matrimonial life and they have refused to accommodate each other for a long period of time. Consequently, their conduct amounts to cruelty to each other. This Court is of the view that in matrimonial matters involving two individuals, it is not for the society or for the Court to sit in judgment over which spouses' approach is correct or not. It is their strongly held views and their refusal to accommodate each other that amounts to cruelty to one another.”, the court said.

Reference was made to the Constitution Bench decision in Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan (2023), where it was held that the Court's power under Article 142 to do “complete justice” is not fettered by the fault theory embedded in statutory divorce law.

Also, the Court relied upon Kumari Rekha v. Shambhu Saran Paswan (2025), where it was observed that non-availability of grounds for dissolution of a Hindu marriage is not a bar for this Court to exercise its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, especially when the Court is satisfied that it is a case of irretrievable breakdown of marriage.

Cause Title: N  VERSUS A 

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1210

Click here to download judgment

Appearance:

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Arvind Kumar Gupta, AOR

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Bikas Kar Gupta, Adv. Mr. Azim H. Laskar, Adv. Mr. Chandra Bhushan Prasad, AOR