Forcing A Relationship Of Husband & Wife Cannot Be Done By Judicial Proceedings: Supreme Court Grants Divorce After 22 Years Of Separation
The Court directed ₹60 lakh alimony and release of ₹68 lakh lying in the Registry, while also protecting the daughter’s rights and noting the father’s undertaking to contribute to her marriage expenses.
The Supreme Court, invoking its extraordinary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, dissolved a marriage that had irretrievably broken down after the parties had lived separately for more than 22 years. Observing that courts cannot compel spouses to continue a dead marriage for all particular purposes, the Court granted divorce while setting aside concurrent findings of the Family Court and the High Court refusing dissolution.
The Bench directed payment of ₹60 lakh as permanent alimony to the respondent-wife and ordered release of ₹68 lakh (with accrued interest) lying in the Court Registry. It further safeguarded the rights of the couple’s daughter, clarifying that her legal entitlements arising from being the biological daughter of the appellant would remain intact. The Court also recorded the appellant’s undertaking that he would contribute towards the expenses of the daughter’s marriage whenever it takes place.
Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice R. Mahadevan observed, “…the Court has to look at the matter objectively, more so, for the reason that both the parties have a life ahead which it is for them to choose how they want to spend and forcing a relationship, that too of husband and wife, cannot be done by judicial proceedings. The Court thus has taken a very realistic view in the matter and going by what has been stated above, has come to the conclusion that the marriage between the parties being dead for all practical purposes has to be nullified”.
“Accordingly, exercising our power/jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, we grant a decree of divorce to the parties on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage…”, further observed.
Balaji Srinivasan, AOR appeared for the appellant and the respondent appeared-in-person.
In the matter, the husband had approached the Court challenging the refusal of divorce, contending that the parties had been living separately since 2003 and all attempts at reconciliation had failed.
The respondent-wife, appearing in person, opposed the plea, disputing allegations of cruelty and insisting that the marriage should continue. However, the Court noted the absence of any workable resolution between the parties.
Therefore, emphasising that matrimonial disputes cannot be perpetuated through judicial compulsion, the Court held that the marriage had broken down irretrievably and required dissolution in the interest of justice. Exercising powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, the Court set aside the concurrent orders of the courts below and granted a decree of divorce.
“…the respondent is totally opposed to grant of divorce, more so because of societal pressure. On a query of the Court as to what were her real differences, when clearly relationships cannot be restored between the parties by passing of orders and the Court was of the tentative opinion that the marriage has irretrievably broken down, the respondent-wife could not come up with any satisfactory explanation…”, the Bench noted.
“The Court thus, was left in a peculiar situation where it had to take a call as to whether interference was required or not. The Court may indicate here that in such matters and at a juncture where the stance of the parties are absolutely hard and totally inflexible, the Court has to take a hard decision which may not be acceptable to both the parties…”, it said.
Cause Title: X v. Y Civil Appeal No(s). 8212-8213 of 2026
Appearances:
Appellant: Balaji Srinivasan, AOR, Kanishka Singh, Advocates.
Respondent: Respondent-in-person.