NEW DELHI: In a landmark judgment reinforcing personal dignity and mental well-being in matrimonial disputes, the Supreme Court of India dissolved a 16-year-old marriage, declaring that forcing a couple to stay in a “dead marriage” only perpetuates suffering. The verdict highlights the apex court’s firm stance that when foundational aspects of marriage are lost, the relationship should not be legally sustained just for form’s sake.
A bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta invoked its extraordinary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to grant a divorce to a man whose plea had been rejected by both the family court and the Delhi High Court. The couple, married in 2008, had been living separately since 2009 — just a year after their wedding — with all reconciliation attempts, including court-directed mediation, ending in failure.
“It has been consistently held that the institution of marriage is rooted in dignity, mutual respect, and shared companionship,” the bench noted. “When these foundational aspects are irreparably lost, forcing a couple to remain legally bound serves no beneficial purpose.”
The court underscored that the role of the judiciary is not merely to preserve marital bonds at any cost, but to ensure justice, dignity, and well-being for both spouses. Citing its own precedents, the bench reaffirmed that the welfare and dignity of individuals must be prioritized over societal expectations of marital endurance.
In this case, the husband’s plea for divorce was initially dismissed by a family court in 2017, and subsequently by the Delhi High Court in 2019, which held that his allegations of cruelty could not be substantiated. Meanwhile, the wife had filed a case of harassment against her in-laws — a charge that was later dismissed, leading to their acquittal.
The Supreme Court emphasized that after more than 16 years of separation, the marriage had become a hollow shell — devoid of cohabitation, emotional connection, or any semblance of companionship. “There has been a complete cessation of cohabitation and consortium, rendering the marriage defunct for all practical and legal purposes,” the court observed.
“This prolonged estrangement, the emotional distance, and the loss of trust have led to an irretrievable breakdown of the marital relationship. No effort of reconciliation has succeeded, and it is clear that the marriage has disintegrated beyond repair,” the court stated.
The judgment also drew attention to the human cost of such legal limbo, observing that both parties had lost the “prime years of their youth” entangled in a bitter and unyielding legal battle. “To continue this marriage would only escalate animosity and litigation, contrary to the very ethos of matrimonial harmony envisioned by the law,” the bench said.
In a particularly scathing observation, the court said the husband could not be reasonably expected to stay bound in a marriage with someone who had falsely accused him and his family of cruelty. “The acquittal in the criminal case filed by the wife underscores the depth of mistrust and the impossibility of rebuilding this relationship.”
By invoking Article 142, the court exercised its power to deliver “complete justice,” stepping in where procedural technicalities and legal formalities had failed to recognize the emotional truth of the situation.
Legal experts say the ruling could open the door to more realistic assessments of failed marriages, especially where prolonged separation and toxic litigation have destroyed the possibility of reconciliation.
This judgment not only grants long-awaited closure to a couple locked in marital discord but also sends a strong message: courts will not compel individuals to remain in emotionally destructive and irretrievably broken relationships.
It is a bold reaffirmation of the evolving understanding of marriage in Indian jurisprudence — one that prioritizes human dignity over societal pressure or traditional expectations.
