NAYAN BHOWMICK v. APARNA CHAKRABORTY
Dissolution of Marriage Based on Irretrievable Breakdown: Supreme Court Invokes Article 142 Despite Lack of Fault, Emphasizing Prolonged Separation and No Possibility of Reconciliation.
Court: Supreme Court of India
Citation: 2025 INSC 1436
Decision Date: 15-12-2025
List of Laws
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955; Constitution of India, Article 142; Divorce Law; Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage
- Facts: The appellant-husband and respondent-wife married in 2000. The wife alleged ill-treatment by the husband and his family, forcing her to leave the matrimonial home in 2001. The husband filed for divorce in 2003 under Section 13(1)(i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, which was initially dismissed as premature. A subsequent suit in 2007 was decreed in favor of the husband on the ground of desertion. The High Court reversed this decision, finding no intent to permanently forsake the husband.
- Procedural Posture: The husband appealed the High Court's judgment to the Supreme Court, challenging the High Court's decision to set aside the divorce decree granted by the Additional Deputy Commissioner.
- Issue: Did the High Court err in reversing the divorce decree granted on the ground of desertion, and can the Supreme Court exercise its power under Article 142 of the Constitution to dissolve the marriage based on irretrievable breakdown?
- Holding: Yes, the High Court erred. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, upholding the initial divorce decree and dissolving the marriage under Article 142 of the Constitution of India due to irretrievable breakdown.
- Reasoning: The Supreme Court noted the prolonged separation of 24 years, the lack of reconciliation, and the absence of children. It cited previous judgments, including Rakesh Raman vs. Kavita and Shilpa Sailesh vs. Varun Sreenivasan, emphasizing that a long period of separation without hope of reconciliation amounts to cruelty and that the power to do 'complete justice' under Article 142 is not fettered by the doctrine of fault. The Court observed that the marriage had irretrievably broken down, making its continuation a mere legal fiction causing further misery. The Court distinguished the case from situations where the "boggy of irretrievable breakdown of marriage" is used by the party at fault.
🔒 For Members Only