1. Transfer petition under Section 25 CPC for matrimonial proceedings under Hindu Marriage Act; subsequent application for divorce on ground of irretrievable breakdown under Article 142 of the Constitution. (Para 1 , 3 , 5 )
Back
Next 
2025 Supreme(SC) 1605
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol and Sandeep Mehta, JJ.
Xxx – Appellant
Vs.
Yyy – Respondent
Transfer Petition (C) No. 2922 of 2024
Decided on : 20-03-2025
The Supreme Court can exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution to grant a divorce on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage, even if the separation period is less than six years, provided the marriage is totally unworkable and emotionally dead.
Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 25 - Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Sections 12(1)(a), 13(1)(ia) - Grant of divorce - Divorce granted on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage, in light of the factors outlined by the Constitution Bench in Shilpa Sailesh - The couple had been separated for over three years with no intent for reconciliation, being independent professionals with no children - Application accepted under Article 142 of the Constitution. (Paras 1-10)
(B) Irretrievable breakdown of marriage - The discretion to grant divorce on this ground requires careful consideration of various factors, ensuring complete justice is achieved for both parties. Factors include duration of separation, nature of allegations, and attempts at reconciliation. (Paras 7-8)
Facts of the case:
The parties, both lawyers, were married in 2015 and separated in 2022 after unsuccessful attempts made by family and mediators - The respondent filed for divorce in September 2024. (Paras 2.1-2.5)
Findings of Court:
The court concluded that the factors for granting a divorce, including the irretrievable breakdown of the marriage, were sufficiently met and justified the granting of the decree. (Paras 8-9)
Issues: The main issues included whether the marriage had irretrievably broken down and whether the requisite factors for divorce were satisfied. (Paras 5, 7)
Ratio Decidendi: The court affirmed that a divorce on the basis of irretrievable breakdown is at the discretion of the court and contingent upon a detailed assessment of the situation—sufficient separation time and both parties' independent capability being strong enough considerations. (Paras 7-9)
Result: The application was granted, and the divorce was ordered.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Petitioner sought transfer of proceedings; respondent subsequently sought dissolution of marriage on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage under Article 142 of the Constitution. (Para 3 , 5 )
3. The court observed that the marriage is emotionally dead and unworkable, noting the parties' professional independence, lack of children, and mutual agreement to dissolve the marriage. (Para 8 , 9 )
4. Divorce under Article 142 for irretrievable breakdown is a discretionary power exercised to ensure complete justice when a marriage is totally unworkable and beyond salvation. (Para 7 , 8 )
5. Application for divorce under Article 142 accepted; marriage dissolved; all inter se proceedings closed and allegations expunged. (Para 10 , 11 )
6. Under what circumstances can the Supreme Court grant a divorce on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage?
The Court exercises discretion under Article 142 to ensure complete justice when it is satisfied that the marriage is totally unworkable, emotionally dead, and beyond salvation, considering factors like separation period, nature of allegations, and welfare of dependents. (Para 7 , 8 )
7. Is a minimum separation period of six years mandatory for granting divorce on the ground of irretrievable breakdown under Article 142?
No, while a separation of six years or more is a relevant factor, it is not mandatory. The Court may grant divorce for shorter periods based on specific facts, such as the parties' professional independence and lack of children. (Para 7 , 9 )
8. What factors does the Court consider when determining if a marriage has irretrievably broken down?
Factors include the period of cohabitation and separation, nature of allegations, attempts at mediation, economic and social status, educational qualifications, presence of children, and provisions for alimony. (Para 7 )
ORDER :
1. This transfer petition under Section 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 read with Order LXI(1) of the SUPREME COURT RULES , 2013, seeking transfer of H.M.A.No.1200/2024 filed under Section 12(1)(a) and 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955 [Hereinafter "HMA"] from the Court of Family Judge No.1, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur (Rajasthan) to the Court of the Principal Family Judge, Family Court, Dwarka, has been filed by the petitioner-husband.
2. This petition arose in the following circumstances:
2.1 Both the petitioner and the respondent are lawyers by training and profession, having met while at college. Their relationship, which began in the year 2007, progressed to their betrothal in February 2013 and culminated in marriage on 30th January 2015 at Jaipur. Their pursuit of law as a profession was also a joint exercise.
2.2 Both being practicing advocates in Delhi/NCR, they resided together since marriage till 13th March 2022. For reasons not warranting disclosure, parties parted ways since then. Attempts by elders and well-wishers did not yield any positive resolution in the amicable solution of issues arising from matrimonial discord.
2.3 However, in February 2023, there was some short-lived consensus that they should make attempts to start life afresh, which also could not fructify.
2.4 They met once again on 15th April 2023 when the gifts exchanged between the families during the marriage ceremony were returned.
2.5 Later on, several proceedings under different statutes were initiated by the parties. We refrain from referring to the allegations made therein.
3. Finally, seeking divorce, proceedings before the Court of Family Judge No.1, Jaipur, were filed by the respondent-wife in the month of September 2024. Since both parties are undisputedly residing in Delhi, hence, this transfer petition by the husband.
4. When this matter came up for consideration before Hon'ble Judge in Chambers on 11th November, 2024, this Court made the following order :
"1. Registry is directed to mask the identity of both the parties.
2. Issue notice. Ms. Megha Karnwal, learned Advocate on-Record who appears on caveat accepts notice. Service of notice is dispensed with.
3. The counsel for the parties agree for a mediated settlement.
4. In view of the above, we consider it proper to refer the matter to the Mediation Centre attached to this Court. The parties shall appear before the Coordinator of the Supreme Court Mediation Centre on 28th November, 2024 at 11:00 a.m. either physically or through video conferencing facility.
5. Thereafter, it will be at the discretion of the Mediator nominated by the Coordinator to allow virtual appearance of the parties or to insist for the physical presence as may be necessary.
6. The mediation report may be submitted within two months.
7. In the meanwhile, further proceedings in HMA No.1200/2024 titled as "YYY Vs. XXX" pending before the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Jaipur, Rajasthan shall remain stayed, until further orders."
However, the mediation remained unsuccessful.
5. The respondent wife filed I.A.No.45574 of 2025 seeking dissolution of marriage on the ground of irretrievable breakdown as per this Court's power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India. In such application, it is averred that the present is a fit case for exercise of this extra-ordinary jurisdiction, inter alia, on the grounds that :
A. Parties have been separated since 13th March 2022, i.e., for more than three years and the marriage has irretrievably broken down.
B. There is absolutely no chance of the marriage surviving, and as such, continuation of the same, even if only on paper, adds to the misery of the parties and their families.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
7. Sanjiv Khanna, J. (as His Lordship then was), writing for the Constitution Bench in Shilpa Sailesh (supra) observed in paragraph 33 of the judgment, as under:
"33. Having said so, we wish to clearly state tha
