Kiran Raj

The Supreme Court of India Division Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta directed dissolution of a marriage under Article 142 of the Constitution of India. The Court held that the marriage between the parties had irretrievably broken down as they had been living separately for nearly fifteen years, with no possibility of reconciliation. The Bench ordered the dissolution of the marriage solemnized on 15 February 2009 and further directed the payment of permanent alimony to the respondent and the minor son of the marriage. The Court specified that the appellant-husband must pay a sum of Rs. 1,25,00,000 (Rupees One Crore Twenty-Five Lakhs only) in five quarterly instalments to the respondent-wife, failing which the order would stand recalled and any payment already made forfeited. The appeal was accordingly allowed, and the impugned order of the High Court was set aside.

The marriage between the appellant-husband and the respondent-wife was solemnized on 15 February 2009. Following the marriage, the parties relocated to the United States of America, where the appellant-husband was employed. A son was born to the couple on 7 April 2010.

Also Read: Demand And Acceptance Is A Sine Qua Non | Supreme Court Acquits One Accused In ₹500 Bribe Trap For Lack Of Connivance Evidence, Cuts VAO’s Sentence To Statutory Minimum

On 26 September 2012, the appellant-husband instituted a divorce petition bearing H.M.O.P. No. 197 of 2012, which was later renumbered as F.C.O.P. No. 245 of 2014, before the Family Court. The petition was filed under Sections 13(1)(ia) and 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The appellant sought dissolution of the marriage on the grounds of cruelty and adultery. After considering the evidence, the Family Court, by its order dated 17 October 2016, granted a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty. The allegation of adultery was not found to be proved.

Aggrieved by the decree of divorce, the respondent-wife filed Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 2678 of 2017 before the High Court on 11 January 2017. The High Court issued notice on 14 February 2017, but the same remained unserved upon the appellant-husband. During the pendency of the appeal, on 5 March 2017, the appellant-husband contracted a second marriage.

The High Court, by its judgment dated 24 August 2018, allowed the appeal filed by the respondent-wife. It set aside the decree of divorce granted by the Family Court. The High Court recorded that the Family Court had accepted the rude utterances of the respondent-wife’s father as constituting cruelty. However, the High Court observed that such utterances, even if agitating to the appellant-husband, could not be attributed as acts of cruelty committed by the respondent-wife. On this basis, the High Court held that the decree of divorce could not be sustained.

The appellant-husband, dissatisfied with the decision of the High Court, approached the Supreme Court through Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 31247 of 2018, challenging the judgment of the High Court. Leave was granted, and the matter was heard as a civil appeal.

The Supreme Court considered the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for both sides. At the initial stage, the Court issued notice with the object of exploring the possibility of a settlement through mediation. However, the mediation proceedings failed to yield a resolution.

The appellant-husband thereafter moved an application under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, seeking dissolution of the marriage on the ground of irretrievable breakdown. The Court noted that the parties had been living separately since 2010, a period of nearly fifteen years, with no indication of reconciliation or revival of matrimonial ties. The Court also took note of the fact that the appellant-husband had remarried in March 2017 and had not extended financial support to the respondent-wife and the child during the period of separation. This failure to provide support was taken into account by the Court while considering the issue of permanent alimony.

The Supreme Court, in its judgment, recorded the state of the relationship and the inability of the parties to reconcile. The Bench stated: "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, and neither party has shown any inclination to resolve their differences."

The Court further observed: "Furthermore, the appellant-husband has been remarried since 05.03.2017. In these circumstances, we see no purpose in continuing the legal relationship between the parties. The marriage has irretrievably broken down."

On the issue of exercising powers under Article 142, the Bench stated: "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."

The Court, while recording its observations, made it clear that continuation of the marital tie served no practical purpose. The invocation of Article 142 was justified in the circumstances, as the marriage had lost all meaning and had become a mere legal formality.

The Bench ordered: "Accordingly, the marriage solemnized on 15.02.2009 stands dissolved."

The Court further directed: "We further deem it just and proper to award a one-time lump sum as permanent alimony to the respondent-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 Rs.1,25,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore Twenty-Five Lakhs only) as permanent alimony and all other claims of the wife would stand satisfied."

Also Read: Prima Facie Unlawful Detention | Madras High Court Orders Release Of Lawyers And Law Students Held During Protest

In addition, the Court specified the manner of payment: "The amount shall be paid in five equal quarterly instalments of Rs.25,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty-Five Lakhs only) each." The Bench stipulated the dates for the instalments: "First instalment on or before 15.09.2025; Second instalment on or before 15.12.2025; Third instalment on or before 15.03.2026; Fourth instalment on or before 15.06.2026; Fifth and final instalment on or before 15.09.2026."

The Court also made provision for default in 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."

Finally, the Court concluded: "The appeal is accordingly allowed. The impugned order of the High Court is set aside. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of."

Advocates Representing the Parties

For Petitioner(s): Mr. S. Nagamuthu, Sr. Adv. Mr. C. Paramasivam, Adv. Mr. M.P. Parthiban, AOR Ms. Priyaranjani Nagamuthu, Adv. Mr. Bilal Mansoor, Adv. Mr. Shreyas Kaushal, Adv. Mr. S. Geyolin Selvam, Adv. Mr. Alagiri K, Adv. Mr. Shivansh Sharma, Adv.

For Respondent(s): Mr. Anup Kumar, AOR Mrs. Shruti Singh, Adv. Mr. Shivam Kumar, Adv. Mrs. Neha Jaiswal, Adv.

Case Title: A. Ranjithkumar v. E. Kavitha
Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 978
Case Number: Civil Appeal No. …/2025 (@ arising out of SLP(C) No. 31247 of 2018)
Bench: Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta