A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

The Supreme Court of India in Pradeep Bhardwaj v. Priya allowed a civil appeal under its Article 142 jurisdiction and dissolved a marriage that had become non-functional after over sixteen years of separation. The Family Court had earlier dismissed the husband’s petition under s.13(1)(a), Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and the Delhi High Court affirmed that refusal, cautioning against rewarding the husband. Before the Court, the appellant urged irretrievable breakdown of marriage, pointing to prolonged estrangement, failed mediation, and acquittal in a criminal case under ss.498A/406/34, IPC. The Court emphasized that when dignity, respect, and companionship are irreparably lost, continuation of the marital tie serves no beneficial purpose. Invoking Article 142, it held that further subsistence of the bond would only fuel animosity and litigation and that the parties must be permitted to live independently. It also enhanced maintenance to ₹15,000 per month for the respondent and the minor son, factoring the appellant’s employment as a private clerk and the respondent’s role as a homemaker. The judgment relied on Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan and Amutha v. A.R. Subramaniam to underscore that the Court may dissolve a dead marriage to secure complete justice. The decree of divorce and maintenance modification were thus ordered, setting aside the High Court’s decision dated 26.02.2019.

Keywords: irretrievable breakdown of marriage; Article 142; s.13(1)(a), Hindu Marriage Act, 1955; maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C.; ss.498A/406/34, IPC; long separation; acquittal; Delhi High Court appeal; matrimonial harmony.

B) CASE DETAILS 

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

The appeal arose from a sustained marital conflict that began soon after the parties’ marriage on 07.05.2008, with a child born on 25.03.2009. The parties have lived separately since October 2009, reflecting a deep rupture in cohabitation and consortium. The appellant’s initial recourse was a petition under s.13(1)(a), Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, alleging cruelty, including claims that the respondent assaulted his ailing mother to grab property and physically abused him, coupled with allegations of an extra-marital relationship and an assault with the help of her brother. The respondent denied the allegations, asserting abandonment since October 2009, failure to provide, and neglect and abuse during cohabitation. The Family Court dismissed the divorce petition on 23.11.2017, finding the case uninspiring and unworthy of acceptance and holding that allegations of cruelty or property transfer demands were unsubstantiated. The High Court of Delhi, by its judgment dated 26.02.2019 in MAT.APP.(F.C.) No. 54/2018, affirmed, reasoning that blending cruelty with irretrievable breakdown would reward the husband who left his wife and minor son; it dismissed the appeal and imposed ₹10,000 costs. In the Supreme Court, the appellant emphasized complete cessation of consortium for over sixteen years, the failure of mediation, and the acquittal in FIR No. 83 of 2011 under ss.498A/406/34, IPC by judgment dated 05.07.2019. The Court noted both parties’ spent prime years in litigation, and, guided by Amutha v. A.R. Subramaniam and Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan, invoked Article 142 to grant a decree of divorce and enhance maintenance to ₹15,000 per month.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

The marriage was solemnised on 07.05.2008 at Delhi according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. A male child was born on 25.03.2009 and has remained in the care and custody of the respondent. Conflict began shortly after the wedding, and the parties have lived separately since October 2009. The appellant filed HMA No. 377 of 2010 under s.13(1)(a), Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 before the Family Court, Tis Hazari, alleging that the respondent assaulted and tortured his ailing mother with an intention to grab her property, physically abused him, had an extra-marital relationship, and assaulted him with the aid of her brother. The respondent denied these allegations, asserting non-provision, abandonment since October 2009, and that she faced neglect and abuse at the hands of the appellant and his family. By order dated 23.11.2017, the Family Court dismissed the petition, calling the case set up by the husband uninspiring and unworthy of acceptance and holding that cruelty and any claim that she sought property transfer remained unsubstantiated. During pendency, the appellant’s application under s.24, HMA for maintenance was dismissed on 12.03.2012, whereas the respondent succeeded under ss.24 and 26, HMA, securing ₹4,500 per month maintenance for herself and the child and ₹5,000 towards litigation cost; the Family Court held him liable to pay that maintenance till the date of judgment. The High Court then dismissed the husband’s appeal on 26.02.2019 and imposed ₹10,000 costs. In the criminal sphere, FIR No. 83 of 2011 under ss.498A/406/34, IPC culminated in an acquittal on 05.07.2019 for the appellant and his family.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

Whether, in light of prolonged separation since October 2009, failed mediation, and acquittal in ss.498A/406/34, IPC proceedings, the Supreme Court could dissolve the marriage by invoking Article 142 on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage notwithstanding the failure to prove cruelty under s.13(1)(a), Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 as found by the Courts below; whether continuation of the marital tie would be antithetical to matrimonial harmony and only fuel animosity and litigation; whether the Delhi High Court’s approach that granting divorce would reward the husband for leaving his wife and child withstands scrutiny when the record shows cessation of consortium for more than sixteen years; and whether, given the parties’ economic stations—the appellant being a private-firm clerk and the respondent a homemaker caring for a 16-year-old minor—a composite monthly maintenance of ₹15,000 should be fixed to secure fairness.

F) PETITIONER / APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

The counsels for the appellant emphasized that cohabitation ended within a year of marriage and that the parties have lived apart for over sixteen years, resulting in complete cessation of consortium and a marriage that is defunct for all practical and legal purposes. They submitted that further continuation would be a travesty of justice, as both parties have exhausted their youth either attempting to reconcile or bearing the prolonged breakdown. They highlighted that mediation at the Supreme Court Mediation Centre failed, reinforcing the absence of any pathway to reconciliation. They relied on the acquittal dated 05.07.2019 in FIR No. 83 of 2011 under ss.498A/406/34, IPC to demonstrate that allegations of cruelty and dowry harassment were false, and urged the Court to apply the doctrine of irretrievable breakdown of marriage within the remedial ambit of Article 142. In support, the appellant invoked Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan and the Court’s consistent exercise of Article 142 powers where the matrimonial bond is beyond repair. The core plea was that the High Court’s focus on cruelty missed the point that the marriage is dead and that the law’s ethos should not perpetuate mental agony by keeping parties bound in name alone.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

The counsels for the respondent underscored concurrent findings of the Family Court and the High Court rejecting cruelty, urging restraint in interference. They pointed out that the appellant failed to prove cruelty, and that permitting a decree of divorce by blending cruelty with irretrievable breakdown would reward the husband for leaving his wife and minor son. They stressed that the appellant had even denied paternity in a manner inconsiderate and inhumane, exposing disregard for the child’s well-being and social status. They contended that one who ignores responsibilities as husband and father cannot take advantage of his own wrong. The respondent also sought enhancement of maintenance beyond ₹7,500 awarded under Section 125, Cr.P.C., pressing the need for a realistic figure befitting current needs. The overall position urged that no dissolution be granted and that the status quo subsist with strengthened maintenance.

H) RELATED LEGAL PROVISIONS

The case centrally engages s.13(1)(a), Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 which contemplates divorce on the ground of cruelty; yet the relief ultimately rests on Article 142 of the Constitution of India, enabling the Supreme Court to do complete justice by dissolving a marriage where the irretrievable breakdown is manifest. The statutory maintenance framework invoked includes Section 125, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, while the criminal proceedings involved ss.498A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The Court also drew strength from its prior recognition, particularly in Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan and Amutha v. A.R. Subramaniam, that where foundational aspects of marriage—dignity, mutual respect, companionship—are irreparably lost, compelling cohabitation or legal status becomes purposeless and a source of mental agony. These provisions and authorities cohere in the present record: failed mediation, sixteen-year separation, and acquittal in dowry-cruelty prosecution catalyzed the Court’s use of Article 142 to sever the bond and enhance maintenance to ensure fairness toward the homemaker-mother and the minor son.

I) JUDGEMENT 

The Court first recorded the failure of mediation at the Supreme Court Mediation Centre, marking reconciliation as not possible. It identified two determinants: the acquittal of the appellant and his family in the 498A/406/34 IPC case instituted by the respondent, and the admitted long separation since October 2009. Restating settled doctrine, the Bench observed that marriage is rooted in dignity, mutual respect and shared companionship, and where those foundational aspects have vanished, forcing a couple to remain bound serves no beneficial purpose. The Court referenced Amutha v. A.R. Subramaniam to emphasize that compelling a dead marriage to continue perpetuates mental agony and societal burden. Applying these guideposts to the facts, it declared that complete detachment and prolonged estrangement showed an irretrievable breakdown that cannot be mended by any means. It added that both parties had spent prime years of youth in the shadow of this discord for more than fifteen years. The Court expressly stated that further continuation would only fuel animosity and litigation, especially in light of the acquittal in the cruelty prosecution. Exercising Article 142, it granted a decree of divorce and, considering economic positions—the husband a private-firm clerk, the wife a homemaker caring for a 16-year-old minor—it enhanced composite maintenance to ₹15,000 per month in favour of the respondent and the child. The impugned 26.02.2019 order of the Delhi High Court was accordingly set aside.

a. RATIO DECIDENDI

The ratio rests on the intersection of Article 142 and the doctrine of irretrievable breakdown of marriage as applied to undisputed facts: separation since October 2009, failure of mediation, and acquittal in the 498A/406/34 IPC case. From these premises, the Court concluded that the marital bond had collapsed beyond repair; continuing the marriage would not restore companionship or dignity, but would aggravate animosity and litigation. The Court’s authority under Article 142 is deployed to do complete justice notwithstanding the Family Court’s and High Court’s findings on cruelty under s.13(1)(a), HMA. Thus, even without establishing cruelty, the Supreme Court may dissolve a dead marriage when the factual matrix evinces complete detachment and an irreparable rupture in cohabitation and consortium. This ratio aligns with the Court’s articulation that marriage, when stripped of dignity, mutual respect, and companionship, lacks legal and social utility, and the law does not insist on a lifeless tie to endure. On that foundation, the decree of divorce was issued and maintenance recalibrated in view of the parties’ roles and needs.

b. OBITER DICTA 

While the judgment is concise, certain observations expand the normative canvas. The Court reaffirmed that the institution of marriage is founded upon dignity, mutual respect, and shared companionship; absent these, legal compulsion becomes counter-productive. The invocation of Amutha v. A.R. Subramaniam underscores a broader policy sensibility that compelling a dead marriage to continue imposes mental agony and a societal burden. The Court also remarked in a telling phrase that “the continuance of marriage shall only fuel animosity and litigation,” a statement reflecting policy considerations beyond the particular facts. The Bench further noted the prime years of youth spent in discord—an equity-laden pointer that highlights temporal costs as a factor in matrimonial relief. Finally, in calibrating maintenance, the Court’s acknowledgement of the husband’s clerical employment and the wife’s status as a homemaker with a 16-year-old in her care signals a pragmatic approach to post-decree support, echoing a welfare orientation even while dissolving the tie. These dicta, taken together, guide future courts toward humane dissolution where reconciliation is illusory and litigation fatigue is pronounced.

c. GUIDELINES

Although no formal guidelines are enumerated, the reasoning yields clear operational markers. First, a long, admitted separation—here since October 2009—when coupled with failed mediation and the absence of any realistic possibility of reconciliation, may justify Article 142 dissolution on irretrievable breakdown. Second, where criminal allegations of cruelty and dowry harassment culminate in acquittal, the Court may regard continuation as unjust and inimical to matrimonial harmony. Third, irreparable loss of companionship and dignity is a substantive touchstone; once these foundational aspects evaporate, compulsion to remain bound serves no beneficial purpose. Fourth, in granting dissolution, courts should also recalibrate maintenance on a composite basis mindful of the earning capacity of the husband and the caregiving role of the wife, especially when a minor child is involved. Fifth, prior concurrent findings on cruelty do not foreclose Article 142 relief if the factual substratum evidences a dead marriage. These synthesized principles, drawn from the Court’s analysis, offer a structured pathway for future cases where irretrievable breakdown is evident on the record.

J) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

The decision in Pradeep Bhardwaj v. Priya reflects the Supreme Court’s calibrated acceptance of irretrievable breakdown of marriage as a practical ground for severance when facts are incontrovertible: sixteen years of separation, failed mediation, and acquittal in the 498A/406/34 IPC prosecution. It reconciles respect for Family Court/High Court findings on cruelty with the constitutional mandate to do complete justice, recognizing that cruelty proof is not always the only lens through which to view a dead marriage. The Court’s focus on the ethos of matrimonial harmony and avoidance of futile legal battles anchors a humane jurisprudence that privileges dignity and welfare over formal subsistence. Equally, the maintenance enhancement to ₹15,000 per month shows the Court’s sensitivity to economic asymmetry and the child’s welfare, marrying dissolution with post-decree security. The case thus consolidates a trend visible in Shilpa Sailesh and Amutha—that Article 142 may be used sparingly but decisively to close chapters that cannot be redeemed, while preventing further animosity and litigation. The analysis signals to trial and appellate courts that, in rare cases where the record itself proves marital death, a constitutional remedy may be the only just end to a long chapter of private pain and public process.

K) REFERENCES

a. Important Cases Referred

i. Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan, [2023] 5 SCR 165 : (2023) 4 SCC 692.

ii. Amutha v. A.R. Subramaniam, [2024] 12 SCR 755 : 2023 SCC OnLine SC 611.

b. Important Statutes Referred

i. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, including s.13(1)(a) and ss.24, 26.

ii. Constitution of India, Article 142.

iii. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 125.

iv. Indian Penal Code, 1860, ss.498A/406/34.