1. Appeal for divorce under Section 13(1)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, on grounds of cruelty, following prolonged separation and dismissal by lower courts. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 )
Back
Next 
2025 Supreme(SC) 1070
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
VIKRAM NATH, SANDEEP MEHTA, JJ.
Pradeep Bhardwaj - Appellant
Versus
Priya - Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 9502 of 2025 [SLP (Civil) No. 18430 of 2019]
Decided On : 15-07-2025
Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Vipin Kumar Jai, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Ms. Nidhi, AOR
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Vipin Kumar Jai, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Ms. Nidhi, AOR
IMPORTANT POINT
Divorce – A dead marriage must be given a decent quietus and continuance of such marriage runs contrary to ethos of matrimonial harmony envisioned by law.
Headnote:
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Section 13(1)(a) – Constitution of India – Article 142 – Divorce – Cruelty by husband – Parties have been living separately for more than 16 years – There has been complete cessation of cohabitation and consortium, rendering marriage defunct for all practical and legal purposes – Institution of marriage is rooted in dignity, mutual respect and shared companionship, and when these foundational aspects are irreparably lost, forcing a couple to remain legally bound serves no beneficial purpose – Due to complete detachment and prolonged estrangement, there has been irretrievable breakdown of marital bond, which cannot be mended by any means – Parties have spent prime years of their youth entangled in this marital discord, which has persisted for more than last fifteen years – Continuance of marriage shall only fuel animosity and litigation between parties, which runs contrary to ethos of matrimonial harmony envisioned by law – It is in best interest of both parties and their minor child that they be allowed to lead their lives independently and peacefully, free from shadow of prolonged and futile legal battles – It is a fit case to exercise its power under Article 142 of Constitution and grant relief of divorce to parties on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage – Decree of divorce granted – Monthly maintenance enhanced to Rs. 15,000/-. (Paras 22, 23, 24, 25, 26 and 27)
Facts of the case:
Instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant-husband against the final judgment and order dated 26.02.2019 in MAT. APP.(F.C.) No. 54/2018 passed by High Court of Delhi, wherein High Court dismissed matrimonial appeal preferred by appellant herein and refused to grant divorce to the parties.
Findings of Court:
It cannot be expected by the appellant to now continue in a marital bond with respondent, a partner who had filed and fought a false case against her husband and in-laws.
Result : Appeal allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- family law
- constitutional law
- crime and sentencing
Table of Contents
2. Husband seeks divorce based on irretrievable breakdown of marriage and acquittal in cruelty charges; wife resists, citing concurrent findings and husband's abandonment. (Para 9 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 )
3. Prolonged estrangement and acquittal in criminal proceedings indicate an irretrievable breakdown of marriage, making the continuation of the legal bond futile and contrary to matrimonial harmony. (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 )
4. The Supreme Court may exercise power under Article 142 of the Constitution to dissolve a marriage upon finding an irretrievable breakdown of the marital bond. (Para 16 , 25 )
5. Appeal allowed; marriage dissolved under Article 142 of the Constitution; monthly maintenance enhanced for the respondent and minor child. (Para 26 , 27 )
6. Can the Supreme Court grant a divorce on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage?
Yes, the Supreme Court can exercise its extraordinary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to dissolve a marriage where the relationship has irretrievably broken down, especially when prolonged separation and animosity render the marriage defunct for all practical and legal purposes. (Para 16 , 22 , 23 , 25 )
7. How does an acquittal in a criminal case for cruelty affect a divorce petition based on marital breakdown?
An acquittal in a cruelty case can demonstrate that allegations were false, contributing to the conclusion that the marital bond is irreparably damaged and that continuing the marriage would only fuel further animosity and litigation. (Para 21 , 24 )
8. Can the court enhance maintenance amounts while granting a decree of divorce under Article 142?
Yes, the court may determine and enhance monthly maintenance for the spouse and children based on the financial status of the parties to ensure a just and equitable arrangement at the time of dissolving the marriage. (Para 26 , 27 )
JUDGMENT :
VIKRAM NATH, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant-husband against the final judgment and order dated 26.02.2019 in MAT. APP. (F.C.) No. 54/2018 passed by the High Court of Delhi, wherein the High Court dismissed the matrimonial appeal preferred by the appellant herein and refused to grant divorce to the parties.
3. The brief facts leading to the instant appeal are that the marriage between the appellant-husband and respondent-wife was solemnised on 07.05.2008 according to the Hindu rites and ceremonies at Delhi. A male child was born out of the wedlock on 25.03.2009, who has remained in the care and custody of the respondent. The conflict ensued between the parties shortly after the wedding took place and the parties have been living separately since October 2009 itself.
4. The appellant preferred a divorce petition under Section 13(1)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 19551 [HMA, 1955] vide HMA No. 377 of 2010 before the Family Court, Tis Hazari, Delhi seeking dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty. The grounds seeking divorce were that the respondent used to assault and torture the appellant’s ailing mother with an intention to grab her property. There were further allegations laid by the appellant upon the respondent regarding physically abusing the appellant, having an extra-marital relationship and conducting assault upon the appellant with the help of her brother.
5. The divorce petition was contested by the respondent who denied all the allegations and claimed that the appellant fails to financially provide for her and the minor child. It was also claimed by the respondent that the appellant has abandoned her and the minor child since October 2009, and that even in the period that they spent together, she faced constant neglect and abuse at the hands of the appellant and his family members.
6. The Family Court, vide order dated 23.11.2017, dismissed the appellant’s divorce petition while holding that the case set up by him was uninspiring and unworthy of acceptance. It was held that the allegation of cruelty against the respondent as well as her wanting transfer of the ownership of the property remain unsubstantiated. Therefore, the appellant’s petition seeking divorce on the ground of cruelty was rejected by the Family Court.
7. During the pendency of the divorce petition, the appellant had preferred an application under Section 24 of HMA, 1955 seeking maintenance from the respondent and the same was dismissed vide order dated 12.03.2012. However, on an application preferred by the respondent under Section 24 and 26 of HMA, 1955, the appellant had been directed to pay an amount of Rs. 4,500/- per month to the respondent and their child towards their maintenance, apart from Rs. 5,000/- towards litigation expenses. The Family Court, vide final judgment, had held the appellant liable to pay the said maintenance to the respondent till the date of judgment in the above-mentioned terms.
8. Aggrieved by the dismissal of his divorce petition, the appellant preferred an appeal against the order dated 23.11.2017 before the High Court of Delhi.
9. The appellant strongly urged before the High Court that the limited ground on which he was seeking divorce was the irretrievable breakdown of marriage given the long period of separation between the parties and the constant feelings of animosity that the two parties harbour for each other. The respondent had resisted the grant of divorce.
10. The High Court, vide the impugned order dated 26.02.2019, affirmed the decision of the Family Court and held that the appellant has failed to prove cruelty and that granting a decree of divorce on the ground that cruelty stands blended with the irretrievable breakdown of marriage would be equivalent to rewarding the husband for leaving his wife and minor son. Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the appeal and imposed the cost of Rs. 10,000/- upon the respondent.
11. Aggrieved by the impugned order, t
