The Supreme Court's Power Under Article 142 In Cases Of Irretrievable Breakdown Of Marriage.

Introduction:

In a recent judgement, the Supreme Court, in Neha Lal v. Abhishek Kumar¹, dealt with irretrievable breakdown of marriage and the Court's power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to grant divorce without mutual consent. The present case began as a transfer petition filed by the wife, seeking transfer of proceedings for the offence of perjury, from the Family Court, District East, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi to the Family Court, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, but evolved into a broader scrutiny of whether the marriage that had survived only 65 days of cohabitation and more than a decade of hostile litigation should continue to subsist in law.

The main issue under dispute was whether, in the facts of the case, the marriage had irretrievably broken down to such an extent that the Supreme Court should exercise its extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to dissolve the marriage, despite the husband's non-consent and despite the absence of a statutory ground under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 ( "HMA").

Brief facts:

The marriage was solemnized between the parties on 28.01.2012 as per HMA. After approximately 65 days of cohabitation, the spouses separated on 02.04.2012. From that point forward, the marriage existed only as litigation. The wife first filed a transfer petition in objection to an application filed under section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the husband, and sought transfer of the proceedings from Delhi to Lucknow. During the pendency of that petition, the wife filed an interlocutory application invoking Article 142 of the Constitution of India seeking dissolution of marriage. The husband opposed the request, denied any settlement, and emphasized pending criminal and perjury actions. The spouses had no children, and the wife did not claim alimony in the aforesaid application filed under Article 142 of the Constitution of India.

Given the peculiar circumstances, the Court directed both parties to file comprehensive lists of litigations initiated by them against each other. The Court however, found several discrepancies and omissions, and hence, it requested the Registrars General of the Delhi High Court and the Allahabad High Court respectively to verify the pendency and disposal status of proceedings. The judicial record revealed more than forty cases initiated between the spouses over the decade, involving domestic violence complaints, maintenance proceedings, police complaints, criminal cases, perjury applications, execution petitions, multiple divorce petitions, and writ / revision proceedings.

Notably, mediation was attempted even before the Supreme Court, but the same could not take off.

Background: The Concept of Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage

The concept of irretrievable breakdown of marriage has not been defined as a statutory ground for divorce under the HMA. The Law Commission of India, in multiple reports, has recommended legislative recognition of irretrievable breakdown as one of the grounds, noting its relevance in contemporary matrimonial disputes.

In the absence of statutory reform, the Supreme Court has passed a string of judgments invoking Article 142 of the Constitution of India to dissolve marriages that are proven to be completely dead in fact and substance. A key precedent regarding this concept is the Constitution Bench judgment in Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan², where the Court affirmed that irretrievable breakdown is a valid basis for dissolution under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, even without mutual consent, provided that justice so demands and noted that if there is failure in the efforts for reconciliation and it is found that a marriage has been wrecked beyond the scope of salvage, it was in the interest of all concerned to recognize that fact and dissolve the marriage, otherwise the litigation, sufferings by all the parties and the miseries would continue. The Court also elaborated contextual criteria for identifying such breakdown, including period of cohabitation during marriage, duration of separation, nature of allegations, failed reconciliation efforts, socio-economic circumstances, pendency of litigation, and involvement of children.

Earlier decisions such as Rakesh Raman v Kavita³, Vikas Kanaujia v Sarita⁴, and Nayan Bhowmick v Aparna Chakraborty⁵ similarly demonstrate judicial willingness to recognize when marriage has structurally collapsed beyond repair, and even under circumstances where one of the parties did not consent for passing of such a decree.

In essence, the concept of irretrievable breakdown of marriage balances two values i.e. the preservation of marriage as a social institution, and the recognition of individual dignity and autonomy against coerced continuation of a hostile relationship.

Findings of the Court:

The Court held that the marriage had completely broken down as the parties lived together for only about 65 days and had been separated for more than ten years.

The Court observed that the marriage had turned into endless litigation and that keeping the legal relationship alive served no purpose for either spouse or for the justice system. Relying on factors (which are only illustrative) as laid down in Shilpa Sailesh (Supra), the Court held that it could dissolve a marriage under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, if the relationship was beyond repair and same needed no consent of the parties, especially in the given set of circumstances.

The Court specially noted that whenever the parties in matrimonial dispute have differences, the preparation starts as to how to teach a lesson to the other side. The Court also observed that Courts are treated as battlefields and evidence is collected and, in some cases, even created using artificial intelligence. The Court held that it is the duty of all concerned (Police, Court, and other forums) including the family members of the parties to make their earnest effort to resolve the disputes before any civil or criminal proceedings are launched.

The Supreme Court dissolved the marriage, closed all pending matrimonial cases between the parties (except perjury-related proceedings), and imposed token costs of Rs. 10,000/- each on both spouses for burdening the courts with prolonged litigation.

Conclusion:

The decision in Neha Lal is a practical and welcome decision as it states that preservation of a dead marriage has no rehabilitative value for the spouses, and no systemic value for the judiciary. It also affirms personal dignity of an individual by refusing to let legal procedure prolong hostile relationships.

Criminal law is meant to address genuine cases of domestic violence and should not be misused as a tool for pressure or revenge, as such misuse destroys any possibility of settlement. The Court's decision to continue perjury cases shows that even if the marriage ends, people must still be accountable if they mislead the courts.

The judgment strikes a balance by respecting marriage as an institution while recognizing that people should not be forced to stay in a marriage that no longer exists in reality.

Footnotes

1. 2026 SCC OnLine SC 95

2. (2023) (14 SCC 231)

3. (2023 3 SCR 552)

4. ((2024) 7 SCR 933)

5. (2025 INSC 1436)

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.