Kiran Raj

The Supreme Court Division Bench of Justice Manmohan and Justice Joymalya Bagchi on Monday (December 15, 2025) dissolved the marriage between a husband and wife, upholding the trial court’s decree of divorce and setting aside the High Court order that had declined to sustain it. The Court noted that a marital tie need not be kept alive solely as a legal formality when it has existed only on paper for decades. In the dispute, the husband sought dissolution after the spouses had lived separately for about 24 years with no children, while the wife opposed the divorce and attributed the separation to alleged ill-treatment and pressure to give up her employment. The Bench held that their fundamentally different approaches to matrimonial life and prolonged refusal to accommodate each other amounted to mutual cruelty, resulting in an irretrievable breakdown of the marriage.

The marriage between the appellant-husband and the respondent-wife was solemnized on 04 August 2000 at Shillong according to Hindu rites. Both parties were employed as Development Officers with the Life Insurance Corporation of India and had known each other professionally prior to marriage. In 2001, the respondent-wife left the matrimonial home. According to her, she was compelled to do so due to persistent ill-treatment and pressure from the appellant and his family to resign from her employment, despite her financial responsibilities towards her dependent family members.

Also Read: Section 29A Arbitration Act | Arbitrator’s Mandate Ends With Lapse Of 18-Month Period, Substituted Arbitrator Must Continue After Extension; Supreme Court

In 2003, the appellant instituted divorce proceedings under Section 13(1)(i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, which were dismissed as premature in 2006. A subsequent appeal before the High Court was withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh suit. Thereafter, in 2007, the appellant again sought dissolution of marriage on grounds of cruelty and desertion. The trial court granted a decree of divorce in 2010 on the ground of desertion.

The respondent-wife challenged this decree before the Gauhati High Court, which set aside the divorce, holding that desertion was not established and that the wife was willing to resume cohabitation. The appellant-husband then approached the Supreme Court. By the time the appeal was heard, the parties had lived separately for nearly twenty-four years, had no children from the marriage, and mediation efforts had failed.

The Supreme Court recorded that matrimonial litigation between the parties commenced within two years of marriage and had continued for over two decades. It noted that the parties had been living separately for twenty-four years and that mediation efforts ordered by the Court had failed. 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."

The Court observed: “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.”, 

The Bench noted that the spouses held strongly entrenched views regarding their matrimonial life and had refused to accommodate each other for a long duration. It observed that “their strongly held views and their refusal to accommodate each other amounts to cruelty to one another.” The Court clarified that it is not for the Court or society to decide whose approach was correct when the marital relationship had ceased to function in reality.

Addressing the scope of its constitutional powers, the Court observed that “the power to do ‘complete justice’ under Article 142(1) of the Constitution of India is not fettered by the doctrine of fault and blame.” It recorded that where a marriage has “completely failed and there is no possibility that the parties will cohabit together, continuation of the formal legal relationship is unjustified.”

Also Read: Section 37 A&C Act Bars Evidence Reappraisal: Delhi High Court Dismisses DDA’s Arbitration Appeal On Bank Guarantee Encashment, Watch And Ward Dues

The Supreme Court held that “the marriage between the parties has irretrievably broken down. In exercise of its power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India,” the marriage between the parties stood dissolved.

“The order of the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Judicial), Shillong, insofar as it grants a decree of divorce to the parties is upheld. The impugned order of the High Court is set aside. The appeal stands allowed.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Appellant: Mr. Arvind Kumar Gupta, AOR
For the Respondent: Mr. Bikas Kar Gupta, Adv. Mr. Azim H. Laskar, Adv. Mr. Chandra Bhushan Prasad, AOR

Case Title: N v A
Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1436
Case Number: Civil Appeal No. 5167 of 2012
Bench: Justice Manmohan, Justice Joymalya Bagchi