Date of the Judgment: May 06, 2025
Citation: 2025 INSC 631
Judges: Dipankar Datta, J., Manmohan, J.
Can a marriage be dissolved even when the grounds for divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act are not met? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in the case of Kumari Rekha vs. Shambhu Saran Paswan. The court, exercising its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, dissolved the marriage based on the irretrievable breakdown of the marital relationship. The bench comprised Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Manmohan.
Case Background
The marriage between Kumari Rekha (the appellant-wife) and Shambhu Saran Paswan (the respondent-husband) was solemnized on April 24, 1999. They had a daughter on June 7, 2001. The couple had been living separately for a significant period, with the wife claiming separation since 2008 and the husband since 2012. By the time the case reached the Supreme Court, they had been living apart for over 12 years.
Timeline:
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| April 24, 1999 | Marriage between Kumari Rekha and Shambhu Saran Paswan. |
| June 7, 2001 | Birth of their daughter. |
| 2008 (Wife’s Claim) / 2012 (Husband’s Claim) | Start of separation between the couple. |
| June 4, 2020 | High Court of Judicature at Patna upholds the Family Court’s decision. |
| May 06, 2025 | Supreme Court dissolves the marriage. |
Course of Proceedings
The appellant-wife initially filed a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking a divorce. The Principal Judge, Family Court, Munger, Bihar, dismissed this petition on June 4, 2013. Simultaneously, the respondent-husband’s petition under Section 9 of the same Act, seeking restitution of conjugal rights, was allowed on June 11, 2013. The wife then challenged these decisions before the High Court of Judicature at Patna, which dismissed her appeal on June 4, 2020, upholding the Family Court’s judgment and decree.
Legal Framework
- Section 13, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955: Deals with divorce. The appellant-wife initially filed a petition seeking divorce under this section.
- Section 9, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955: Pertains to restitution of conjugal rights. The respondent-husband filed a petition under this section, which was initially allowed by the Family Court.
- Article 142, Constitution of India: Grants the Supreme Court the power to pass orders necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it. The Supreme Court invoked this article to dissolve the marriage based on irretrievable breakdown.
Arguments
Appellant-Wife’s Arguments:
- Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage: The appellant-wife, represented by Ms. Nivedita Nirvikar, argued that the marriage had irretrievably broken down due to the acrimony between the parties, leaving no possibility of reconciliation.
- Independence and Self-Sufficiency: Ms. Nirvikar contended that the wife had secured public employment through her own efforts and was self-sufficient, dismissing claims of the husband’s significant contributions.
- Daughter’s Well-being: The wife highlighted that she had borne all expenses for their daughter’s upbringing and education, implying the husband’s lack of involvement.
Respondent-Husband’s Arguments:
- Willingness for Reconciliation: The respondent-husband, represented by Mr. Ashok Kumar Choudhary, expressed his willingness to resume the marital relationship, particularly for the sake of their child’s future.
- Contributions to Wife’s Success: Mr. Choudhary argued that the husband had significantly contributed to the wife’s success, including encouraging her to seek public employment and bearing the expenses for her dignified life.
- Concerns about Daughter’s Future: The husband raised concerns about the socio-economic conditions in their rural area, suggesting that a divorce would negatively impact their daughter’s marriage prospects.
- No Error by Lower Courts: Mr. Choudhary argued that the Family Court and the High Court had not erred in their decisions and that the wife was not entitled to the relief she sought.
Submissions Table:
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions (Appellant-Wife) | Sub-Submissions (Respondent-Husband) |
|---|---|---|
| Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage |
✓ Acrimony between parties ✓ No possibility of reconciliation |
✓ Willingness for reconciliation ✓ Concern for child’s future |
| Contributions and Support |
✓ Wife’s self-sufficiency ✓ Wife’s independent efforts |
✓ Husband’s significant contributions to wife’s success ✓ Expenses borne by husband |
| Daughter’s Well-being | ✓ Wife bore all expenses for daughter’s upbringing | ✓ Concerns about daughter’s marriage prospects due to divorce stigma |
| Correctness of Lower Court Decisions | ✓ No error by Family Court or High Court |
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
- Whether the marriage between the parties should be dissolved on the ground of irretrievable breakdown, exercising powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India?
Treatment of the Issue by the Court: “The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues”
| Issue | Court’s Decision | Brief Reasons |
|---|---|---|
| Whether the marriage between the parties should be dissolved on the ground of irretrievable breakdown, exercising powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India? | Yes, the marriage was dissolved. | The Court considered the prolonged period of separation (over 12 years), multiple failed attempts at reconciliation, and the age of the parties (both quinquagenarian). It concluded that there was no possibility of reunion and that dissolving the marriage would be in the best interest of both parties and their daughter. |
Authorities
Cases Relied Upon:
- Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 544, Supreme Court of India: This Constitution Bench decision was referred to by the court to support the exercise of its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution in cases of irretrievable breakdown of marriage.
Legal Provisions Considered:
- Article 142 of the Constitution of India: This provision empowers the Supreme Court to pass orders necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it. The court invoked this article to dissolve the marriage.
Authority Treatment Table:
| Authority | Court | How Treated |
|---|---|---|
| Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 544 | Supreme Court of India | Referred to and followed to justify the use of Article 142 for dissolving the marriage. |
| Article 142 of the Constitution of India | Supreme Court of India | Invoked to dissolve the marriage based on irretrievable breakdown. |
Judgment
How Submissions Were Treated:
| Submission | Party | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|---|
| Irretrievable breakdown of marriage | Appellant-Wife | Accepted as the primary ground for dissolving the marriage, given the prolonged separation and failed reconciliation attempts. |
| Willingness for reconciliation | Respondent-Husband | Rejected, as the court found no genuine intent for reconciliation, especially considering the prolonged separation and lack of contact with the daughter. |
| Contributions to wife’s success | Respondent-Husband | Acknowledged but deemed insufficient to outweigh the fact that the marriage had irretrievably broken down. |
| Concerns about daughter’s future | Respondent-Husband | Dismissed, as the court found the daughter to be mature and capable of making her own decisions, and the husband’s concerns appeared to be an attempt to prolong the litigation. |
How Authorities Were Viewed:
- Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan [2023 SCC OnLine SC 544]: The court relied on this precedent to justify the use of Article 142 in dissolving the marriage based on irretrievable breakdown.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?:
The Supreme Court’s decision to dissolve the marriage was primarily influenced by the prolonged separation of over 12 years and the lack of any possibility of reconciliation. The court also considered the age of the parties and the daughter’s maturity and ability to make her own decisions. The husband’s concerns about the daughter’s future were viewed skeptically, as they appeared to be a tactic to prolong the litigation.
Sentiment Analysis Ranking:
| Reason | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Prolonged Separation | 40% |
| Lack of Reconciliation | 30% |
| Daughter’s Maturity | 15% |
| Age of Parties | 10% |
| Husband’s Motives | 5% |
Fact:Law Ratio:
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Factual Considerations | 70% |
| Legal Considerations | 30% |
Fact: Percentage of the consideration of the factual aspects of the case.
Law: Percentage of legal considerations.
Logical Reasoning:
Prolonged Separation (12+ years)
↓
Failed Reconciliation Attempts
↓
Parties’ Age (Quinquagenarian)
↓
Daughter’s Maturity
↓
Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage
↓
Article 142 Invoked
↓
Marriage Dissolved
Key Takeaways
- The Supreme Court can dissolve a marriage based on irretrievable breakdown, even if the grounds for divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act are not met, by exercising its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution.
- Prolonged separation and failed attempts at reconciliation are significant factors in determining irretrievable breakdown.
- The court may consider the maturity and well-being of the children involved in such cases.
Directions
The Supreme Court directed that a decree of divorce be drawn up to formally dissolve the marriage between Kumari Rekha and Shambhu Saran Paswan.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that the Supreme Court can invoke Article 142 of the Constitution of India to dissolve a marriage on the grounds of irretrievable breakdown, even if the conditions for divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, are not met. This decision reinforces the court’s power to do complete justice in cases where the marital relationship has irretrievably broken down, ensuring that parties are not trapped in a legal bond that has no practical or emotional value.
Conclusion
In Kumari Rekha vs. Shambhu Saran Paswan, the Supreme Court of India dissolved the marriage between the parties, invoking its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution. The decision was based on the irretrievable breakdown of the marriage, marked by a prolonged separation and failed reconciliation attempts. The court emphasized that dissolving the marriage would be in the best interest of both parties and their daughter, allowing them to move forward in life.