The Supreme Court stressed that the courts should not allow parties to remain trapped in “old and frozen” marital relations, and urged the judiciary to end protracted marital disputes by granting effective relief when a marriage has irretrievably broken down, noting that such an approach serves not only the interests of the separating spouses but also the interests of society as a whole.
Justices Sanjay Karol and Augustine George Masih said keeping dead marriages alive through years of litigation only perpetuates frustration and emotional distress while depriving individuals of the opportunity to rebuild their lives. “It is in the interest of the parties and society for relations between the parties to be severed in cases where litigation is pending for an extended period of time,” the court said in its June 2 ruling.
The court added that prolonging a marital relationship that no longer substantively exists “would not only escalate frustration in a dead relationship” but also create a “social, psychological and mental vacuum in life,” preventing individuals from thriving in a free and independent environment. She said matrimonial suits that have been pending for years “must be brought to an end by granting effective release to the parties from an old and frozen relationship.”
These observations came as the court exercised its extraordinary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to dissolve a marriage between two doctors working in government service who had been living separately for more than 15 years.
Read also: Is the Supreme Court’s confidence in the practice of SIR misplaced?
The dispute arose from a marital case in which the husband requested a divorce. Although the parties were legally married, they had not cohabited for more than a decade and a half. Repeated attempts at reconciliation failed, and the lawsuit continued through multiple judicial forums before reaching the Supreme Court.
Examining the record, the court noted that despite the wife’s assertions that she had moved to be closer to her husband, there was no evidence to support this claim. On the contrary, the material on record showed that she continued to reside and work in Gujarat, while the husband was working in Rajasthan. The court found no indication that either party truly intended to resume marital life.
The court also noted that there were no children from the marriage and that both parties were financially independent government doctors, factors that favored the dissolution of the marriage rather than prolonging the dispute.
While recognizing that courts must normally seek to preserve the institution and sanctity of marriage, the panel stressed that this principle cannot justify forcing parties to remain bound in a relationship that no longer exists in any meaningful sense.
Read also: The High Count approaches full power as five judges take the oath
She noted that “the two parties have lived apart for a very long time and there is no longer sanctity in marriage.”
Referring to a series of earlier judgements, the bench reiterated that the Supreme Court has consistently invoked Section 142 to dissolve marriages that have become “totally unworkable, emotionally dead, beyond salvage and irretrievably broken down”, even when the legal grounds for divorce are not strictly defined.
The judgment also relied on the Constitutional Court judgment in Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Srinivasan (2023), which recognized the irretrievable breakdown of marriage as a basis on which the Supreme Court could invoke its Article 142 powers.
After finding that all efforts to reunite the spouses had failed and that the marriage had become impossible to save, the court concluded that full justice required a legal termination of the relationship. Accordingly, the court annulled the marriage based on Article 142 and rejected the wife’s appeal.
