FACTS OF THE CASE

 Marriage and Family Structure. The appellant (husband) and respondent (wife) were married on 14 October 1991 in Faridabad, Haryana, under traditional Hindu rites. They have two sons: one born in August 1993 and the other in May 1996. Both children have since reached adulthood and are fully employed—the elder as a dental associate and the younger as a film/video editor 

 Marital Breakdown. Though originally harmonious, the marriage precipitously deteriorated. Serious allegations surfaced the hubby claimed that the woman , told by her parents, subordinated him to emotional torture, while the woman combated with allegations of internal atrocity and incuriosity by the hubby. This collective imputation led to irrecoverable disharmony.

  Separation. By January 2002, the couple ceased living together. From that point onward, they remained estranged for approximately 22 years, maintaining entirely separate residences and livelihoods. Their disconnection grew deeper over time 

 Failed Reconciliation. Over the times, the courts directed both parties to share in agreement and comforting. Despite formal attempts at conciliation, none drag fruit. Both parties remained firm in their decision to continue living piecemeal.

 Judicial History — Family Court. In December 2004, the husband initiated divorce proceedings under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act (HMA), citing cruelty. The Family Court at Faridabad dismissed the petition, concluding that the alleged cruelty fell short of legal severity.

  Judicial History — High Court. The appellant appealed to the Punjab & Haryana High Court (FAO 146 of 2005). After an extended delay—approximately 15 years—the High Court rendered its judgment in July 2019, affirming the Family Court’s ruling and denying divorce.

 Appeal to Supreme Court. The husband filed a Special Leave Petition (SLP (C) No. 3747 of 2020) before the Supreme Court. Both parties confirmed that cohabitation had ceased in 2002 and remained unrevivable. Compounding matters, neither spouse initiated divorce by mutual consent under Section 13B.

 Grounds, Appeal & Precedent Sought. Sought. Since statutory grounds had failed, the complainant prompted the apex court to use its extraordinary indigenous governance under Composition 142( 1), seeking divorce on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage, citing Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan( 2023), where the Court honored this as a licit base under Article (Composition) 142

 Children Age and Independence. At the time the Supreme Court heard the case in early 2024, both sons were independent adults with no custody issues, undercutting one of the primary reasons courts preserve marital bonds 

 Economic Disparity. The husband held senior managerial positions in multinational firms and had accumulated substantial assets. Conversely, the wife was largely economically dependent, having not participated directly in professional employment during or after the marriage.

ISSUES OF THE CASE

1. Whether, invoking its extraordinary powers under Article (Composition) 142(1) of the Constitution, the Supreme Court is empowered to dissolve a marriage on grounds of irretrievable breakdown, despite the absence of such ground in the Hindu Marriage Act?

2. Whether, given the prolonged separation since 2002, unequivocal rejection of reconciliation efforts, and the adult, financially independent status of the children, the marital relationship can be supposed irretrievably broken, thereby warranting dissolution?

3. Whether, upon granting divorce under Article 142, the Court must also ensure permanent alimony, and if so, what quantum and structure of payment are fair and proportionate in the context of the parties’ respective economic and social position.

JUDGEMENT

On Issue 1: Exercising Article 142 for Irretrievable Breakdown

The Supreme Court confirmed that although the Hindu Marriage Act does not recognize irretrievable breakdown as a statutory ground for divorce, the Court is authorized under Article 142(1) to pass decrees necessary to ensure complete justice. The Bench emphasized that such an extraordinary remedy can be justified when traditional legal provisions fail to address an untenable and emotionally untenable marital situation.

The crucial precedent was the Constitution Bench ruling in Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan( 2023), which clarified that the Supreme Court may dissolve marriages under Composition 142 where the relationship has” emotionally failed”. The Court stressed that this intervention is optional, invoked sparingly upon satisfaction that the marriage is “ fully defunct ”.

In the present case, the Court observed that both parties themselves claimed that conciliation was insolvable. The Court aptly held

 “A marriage that exists only on paper but lacks genuine emotional bond and cohabitation is neither just nor desirable.”

By invoking Article 142, the Court found the exercise of its constitutional power both jurisdictionally permissible and morally compelling, particularly where other legal avenues had been exhausted.

On Issue 2: Evidence of Irretrievable Breakdown

Applying the factors from Shilpa Sailesh and other precedents, the Court conducted a fact-driven analysis:

• Duration of separation: The spouses have not cohabited since January 2002—over 22 years, far exceeding any statutory cooling-off periods.
• Reconciliation attempts: Multiple court-appointed mediation efforts ended without agreement. Both parties confirmed no mutual willingness to reconcile.
• Lack of emotional bond: The court emphasized the absence of any meaningful interaction or personal relationship between the spouses for decades.
• Children’s Independence: Both sons are adults and gainfully employed, eliminating custodial concerns.
• Economic disparity and welfare: The wife depended financially, while the husband had substantial resources.

The Court concluded that the marriage was “beyond redemption”, citing Naveen Kohli v. Neelu Kohli (2006) and Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh (2007) as supportive precedents recognizing that such long-term estrangement and broken bonds justify dissolution.

Thus, the Court allowed the appeal, setting aside all earlier court rulings, and formally decreed divorce under Article 142.

On Issue 3: Permanent Alimony

Recognizing the wife’s lack of earning capacity and the husband’s significant financial standing, the Court awarded ₹50 lakh as lump-sum permanent alimony, to be paid in five monthly installments of ₹10 lakh each.

This condition was mandated before the divorce decree could be finalized, thereby safeguarding the wife’s financial security. The Court referenced K. Srinivas Rao v. D.A. Deepa (2013), which affirmed the necessity of equitable monetary relief as part of divorce proceedings, ensuring that justice is not merely declaratory but also substantive.

Additional Observations in Judgment

Beyond the core issues, the Court delivered several broader observations:

• Delay in justice: The Court condemned the Punjab & Haryana High Court for its 15-year delay, highlighting the emotional burden inflicted by protracted litigation.
• Need for reform: The Court urged legislative intervention to insert irretrievable breakdown as a formal ground for divorce in the Hindu Marriage Act, citing recommendations from the Law Commission 
• Finality: The Court explicitly barred any further claims—maintenance, asset division, or property— after the decree took effect, emphasizing that the divorce marked the conclusive end of marital litigation.
• Human dignity: The Court underscored that forcing individuals to remain in legal marriages devoid of emotional ties undermines personal dignity and contradicts the protective intent of Article 21 of the Constitution.

REASONING

The Supreme Court’s reasoning in Jatinder Kumar Sapra vs. Anupama Sapra was grounded in a careful application of constitutional powers, supported by legal precedents and guided by principles of fairness, practicality, and social justice.

1. Application of legal principles to specific facts

The Court recognized that while irretrievable breakdown of marriage is not a ground under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the present case—where the parties had been separated for over 22 years and failed to reconcile despite multiple attempts—justified the exercise of its extraordinary power under Article 142(1) to do complete justice.

All statutory remedies had failed: the husband’s divorce petition under Section 13(1)(ia) was dismissed at both trial and appellate levels, and no mutual consent petition under Section 13B had been filed. The Court, therefore, acknowledged that only its constitutional powers could bring finality to the matter.

2. Use of precedents and logical analysis

Relying heavily on Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan, (2023) 4 SCC 80, the Court reaffirmed that it can grant a divorce in cases where the marriage is completely unworkable, emotionally dead, and beyond salvage. It also referred to Manish Goel, R. Srinivas Kumar, Naveen Kohli, and Samar Ghosh* to illustrate how long-term separation and emotional disconnection can justify dissolution.

The Court concluded that forcing the couple to remain married in law, when no relationship existed in fact, would serve no purpose except to prolong emotional distress.

3. Policy justifications and fairness

The Court emphasized that the law should not become a source of suffering. It held that compelling individuals to remain in broken marriages violates dignity under Article 21 and undermines the institution of marriage itself.

To ensure fairness, it awarded permanent alimony of ₹50 lakh, structured in five monthly installments, as the wife had no independent income and had contributed to the family during the years of cohabitation. This approach balanced economic justice with legal finality.

4. Connecting law to real-life circumstances

Finally, the Court acknowledged the human reality: the marriage had long ceased to exist in any meaningful way, and both children were independent. Continuing the legal bond would amount to injustice. By invoking Article 142, the Court bridged the gap between rigid legal texts and lived experience, delivering not just legal, but humane justice

REFERENCES

1.  https://indiankanoon.org/doc/36844071/ 

2.  https://updates.manupatra.com/roundup/contentsummary.aspx?iid=45864 

3.  https://www.scobserver.in/reports/divorce-under-article-142-judgement-in-plain-english/ 

4.  Jatinder Kumar Sapra vs. Anupama Sapra 6 May, 2024 [2024] 5 S.C.R. 879; 2024 INSC 382

Written by Anushka Singh student of Aligarh Muslim University, AMU, Aligarh; an Intern under Legal Vidhiya.

Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is personal.

Karan Chhetri

‘Social Media Head’ and ‘Case Analyst’ of Legal Vidhiya.