1. Appeal challenging the setting aside of a divorce decree granted on the ground of desertion under Section 13(1)(i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 )
Back
Next 
2025 Supreme(SC) 2052
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
MANMOHAN, JOYMALYA BAGCHI, JJ.
Nayan Bhowmick – Appellant
Versus
Aparna Chakraborty – Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 5167 of 2012
Decided On : 15-12-2025
Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Arvind Kumar Gupta, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Bikas Kar Gupta, Adv. Mr. Azim H. Laskar, Adv. Mr. Chandra Bhushan Prasad, AOR Mr. Nilkamal Chaubey, Adv.
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Arvind Kumar Gupta, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Bikas Kar Gupta, Adv. Mr. Azim H. Laskar, Adv. Mr. Chandra Bhushan Prasad, AOR Mr. Nilkamal Chaubey, Adv.
IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Divorce – In matrimonial matters involving two individuals, it is not for society or for Court to sit in judgment over which spouses’ approach is correct or not – Long period of separation without any hope for reconciliation amounts to cruelty to both parties.
(2) Supreme Court under Article 142(1) of Constitution of India has discretion to dissolve marriage on the ground of irretrievable breakdown.
Headnote:
(A) Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Section 13(1)(i-b) – Divorce – In matrimonial matters involving two individuals, it is not for society or for Court to sit in judgment over which spouses’ approach is correct or not – Long period of separation without any hope for reconciliation amounts to cruelty to both parties. (Paras 22 and 23)
(B) Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Section 13(1)(i-b) – Constitution of India – Article 142(1) – Divorce – Desertion by wife – Reversal of divorce decree by High Court – Parties have been living separately for long without any hope for reconciliation – Such relationship must be taken to have broken down irretrievably long back – Approach of Courts should be to preserve sanctity of marriage and Court should be reluctant to dissolve marriage at mere asking of one of parties – But, in present case, parties have lived separately for far too long a period of time and there is no sanctity left in marriage – Rapprochement is not in realm of possibility – Grant of divorce in present proceedings would not have a devastating effect on any third party, as there are no children from wedlock – Pendency of matrimonial litigation for a long duration only leads to perpetuity of marriage on paper – It is in best interest of parties and society if ties are severed between parties in cases where litigation has been pending for a considerably long period of time – spouses have strongly held views with regard to the approach towards matrimonial life and they have refused to accommodate each other for a long period of time. Consequently, their conduct amounts to cruelty to each other – No useful purpose shall be served by keeping matrimonial litigation pending in Court without granting relief to parties – Supreme Court in exercise of power to do “complete justice” under Article 142(1) of Constitution of India has discretion to dissolve marriage on the ground of irretrievable breakdown – In exercise of power under Article 142 of Constitution of India marriage between parties dissolved – Appeal allowed. (Paras 24, 28, 33, 34 and 35)
Facts of the case:
Present Appeal has been filed challenging judgment dated 13th April 2011 passed by Gauhati High Court (Shillong Bench), whereby appeal filed by Respondent-wife was allowed and judgment and decree dated 9th March 2010 dissolving marriage on the ground of desertion by Respondent-wife passed by Additional Deputy Commissioner (Judicial), Shillong was set aside.
Findings of Court:
Order of the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Judicial) Shillong, insofar as, it grants a decree of divorce to the parties is upheld and impugned order of the High Court set aside.
Result : Appeal allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Husband alleges irretrievable breakdown and desertion; wife contends forced separation due to ill-treatment and expresses willingness to resume matrimonial life. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 )
3. Prolonged separation without hope for reconciliation constitutes cruelty; an unworkable marriage becomes a legal fiction causing mental misery to both parties. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 )
4. The Supreme Court may dissolve a marriage on the ground of irretrievable breakdown under Article 142(1) of the Constitution, regardless of the doctrine of fault. (Para 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 )
5. Marriage dissolved under Article 142(1) of the Constitution; High Court order set aside and divorce decree upheld. (Para 33 , 34 , 35 )
6. Does a prolonged period of separation without hope for reconciliation constitute cruelty?
Yes, where parties have lived separately for a considerable time and the marriage exists only on paper, such a relationship is considered to have broken down irretrievably, which amounts to cruelty to both parties. (Para 22 , 23 , 24 )
7. Can the Supreme Court dissolve a marriage based on irretrievable breakdown even if statutory grounds are not established?
Yes, the Supreme Court, in exercise of its power to do complete justice under Article 142(1) of the Constitution, has the discretion to dissolve a marriage on the ground of irretrievable breakdown. (Para 28 , 29 , 32 )
8. Is the doctrine of fault and blame applicable when the Supreme Court exercises power under Article 142(1) to grant divorce?
No, the power to do complete justice under Article 142(1) of the Constitution is not fettered by the doctrine of fault and blame that typically applies to divorce petitions under the Hindu Marriage Act. (Para 29 , 30 )
JUDGMENT :
MANMOHAN, J.
1. The present Appeal has been filed challenging the judgment dated 13th April 2011 passed by the Gauhati High Court (Shillong Bench), whereby the appeal filed by the Respondent-wife was allowed and the judgment and decree dated 9th March 2010 dissolving the marriage on the ground of desertion by the Respondent-wife passed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Judicial), Shillong was set aside.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
2. Briefly stated, the relevant facts are that the marriage between Appellant and Respondent was solemnized according to Hindu rites and rituals on 04th August 2000 at Shillong. The parties knew each other prior to their marriage as they had been working together since 1992 as Development Officers under Life Insurance Corporation of India Ltd.
3. According to the Respondent-wife, though the Appellant-husband knew the nature of Respondent’s duty and responsibility in their office even before their marriage, yet the Appellant and his family members demanded the Respondent give up her job ignoring the fact that she had to financially look after her old and ailing mother, her brother and other dependents. It is the Respondent-wife’s case that due to the continuous ill-treatment meted out by the Appellant and his family, Respondent-wife was compelled to leave her matrimonial home in 2001.
4. In 2003, Appellant-husband instituted a suit for divorce before the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Judicial), Shillong for dissolution of the marriage under Section 13(1)(i-b) of the HINDU MARRIAGE ACT , 1955 (“the Act”). However, the suit was dismissed by the learned Additional Deputy Commissioner (J), Shillong as premature vide judgment dated 18th May 2006.
5. The Appellant preferred RFA No. 9(SH) of 2006 before the High Court challenging the judgment dated 18th May 2006, but the same was withdrawn by the Appellant vide order dated 22nd November 2007 with liberty to file a fresh suit.
6. The suit being MAT Divorce Suit No. 13(T) of 2007, underlying the present proceedings was filed by the Appellant-husband on 29th November 2007 under Section 13(i)(i-a))(i-b) of the Act contending that the Respondent had deserted the Appellant-husband with wilful intent of not returning to the matrimonial home.
7. The Additional Dy. Commissioner, Shillong vide judgment dated 9th March 2010 dissolved the marriage observing that Appellant-husband has been able to prove his case under Section 13(1)(i-b) of the Act namely desertion.
8. The Respondent-wife feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 9th March 2010 filed a First Appeal being RFA No. (SH) 1 of 2010 before the High Court. Vide judgment dated 13th April 2011, High Court allowed the appeal filed by Respondent-wife observing that there was no intent to permanently forsake and abandon the Appellant-husband. The High Court in paragraph 6 and 7 of the impugned judgment dated 13th April 2011 has held as under:
“6. The question which falls for consideration in this appeal is whether there is an intentional permanent forsaking and abandonment of one spouse by the other without the other's consent and without reasonable cause? It is a well settled proposition of law that in proceedings for divorce the plaintiff must prove the offence of desertion, like and other matrimonial offence, beyond all reasonable doubt [See Bipinchandra Saisinhbhai (supra)]. In my opinion, the respondent is unable to clinchingly establish that the appellant has deserted him. The evidence led by him are absolutely insufficient to prove desertion. According to his evidence, after the appellant deserted his house, he along with his family members and some of his friends tried to patch up their differences in which she had proposed that if he would not keep his mother with him, then and then only she could come back to him, which he refused to oblige. This evidence of the respondent, who examined himself as PW-7, is conspicuous by the absence of details such as the date, time and place when such reconciliation
