Supreme Court Grants Divorce on Grounds of Irretrievable Breakdown After 24 Years of Separation

In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India has dissolved a marriage under Article 142 of the Constitution, citing irretrievable breakdown due to prolonged separation, overturning a High Court decision that had set aside a lower court's divorce decree. The bench, comprising Justice Manmohan, emphasized that long-term estrangement without hope of reconciliation amounts to cruelty and justifies ending the marital tie, even absent traditional fault grounds like desertion.

Case Overview

The appeal, Civil Appeal No. 5167 of 2012 titled Nayan Bhowmick v. Aparna Chakraborty , stemmed from a marriage solemnized on August 4, 2000, in Shillong between the appellant-husband and respondent-wife, both Development Officers at the Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC) since 1992. The couple separated on November 29, 2001, after the wife left the matrimonial home, alleging pressure from the husband and his family to quit her job to care for his ailing father, which she refused due to her own family responsibilities.

The husband filed for divorce in 2003 under Section 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, on grounds of desertion, but the suit was dismissed as premature. A fresh suit in 2007 succeeded at the trial court (Additional Deputy Commissioner, Shillong), which granted divorce on March 9, 2010, finding desertion proven. The Gauhati High Court (Shillong Bench) reversed this on April 13, 2011, holding no intent to permanently abandon and evidence of the husband's insincere reconciliation efforts. The Supreme Court heard the husband's appeal, filed in 2012, with mediation failing in 2012. No children were born from the marriage.

Arguments Presented

Husband's Contentions

The appellant argued that the 24-year separation since 2001, coupled with no interaction despite working in the same LIC branch, demonstrated irretrievable breakdown. He claimed sincere reconciliation attempts via letters in November and December 2002, which the wife ignored, proving her intent to end cohabitation. Counsel urged recognizing cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) due to the unworkable marriage.

Wife's Contentions

The respondent maintained she left due to ill-treatment and demands to resign, not with desertion intent. She highlighted her willingness to reconcile if the husband excluded his mother from their home—a condition he rejected. Counsel argued the letters were insincere "eyewash" and the husband's hasty 2003 filing showed his desire to end the marriage. Reliance was placed on Savitri Pandey v. Prem Chandra Pandey (2002) 2 SCC 73, asserting breakdown cannot dissolve marriage without fault, and Prabhavathi v. Lakshmeesha M.C. (Civil Appeal No. 8790/2024), warning against using breakdown to benefit the at-fault party. The wife affirmed her readiness to resume matrimonial life.

Legal Precedents and Principles Applied

The Court distinguished the case from Savitri Pandey , noting it has been "read down" in Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan (2023) 14 SCC 231, where a Constitution Bench affirmed Article 142's power to dissolve marriages on irretrievable breakdown, unbound by fault doctrine. The ruling emphasized that prolonged separation (24 years here) inflicts mutual cruelty, citing Naveen Kohli v. Neelu Kohli (2006) 4 SCC 558 and Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh (2007) 4 SCC 511, which hold long estrangement renders marriage a "legal fiction" causing mental cruelty.

Further, Rakesh Raman v. Kavita (2023) 17 SCC 433 was invoked, equating 25 years' separation to irreparable breakdown and cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia). Recent cases like Pradeep Bhardwaj v. Priya (2025) SCC OnLine SC 1436 and Kumari Rekha v. Shambhu Saran Paswan (2025) SCC OnLine SC 1032 reinforced Article 142's discretion in dead marriages, prioritizing dignity over forced ties.

The Court clarified Prabhavathi inapplicable, as both parties contributed to the rift through incompatible views on work and family roles, not unilateral fault.

Key Excerpts from the Judgment

The bench observed: "Long period of separation without any hope for reconciliation amounts to cruelty to both the parties." On reconciliation: "There is no sanctity left in the marriage and rapprochement is not in the realm of possibility."

Quoting Shilpa Sailesh : "An unworkable marriage... is futile and bound to be a source of greater misery... Public interest lies in recognising the real fact [of a wrecked marriage]."

It noted the parties' "strongly held views and their refusal to accommodate each other amounts to cruelty to one another," rejecting societal judgment on whose approach is "correct."

Final Decision and Implications

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, upholding the trial court's divorce decree and setting aside the High Court's order. In exercise of Article 142, it dissolved the marriage, recognizing 24 years' separation and failed mediation as conclusive of irretrievable breakdown.

This ruling underscores the evolving judicial approach to "dead marriages," prioritizing individual well-being and societal interest over rigid fault grounds. It signals courts' readiness to invoke constitutional powers in protracted litigations (here, 22 years), preventing perpetual misery while cautioning against misuse by at-fault parties. For couples in similar long-term separations, it offers hope for closure, though lower courts remain bound by statutory grounds absent special circumstances.