A) Case : Shilpa Sailesh vs. Varun Sreenivasan ( 2023 SC )
Decision: The transformative aspect of the judgment lies in its recognition of the irretrievable breakdown of marriage as a valid ground for divorce under Article 142 of the Constitution, even in the absence of consent from one spouse. A “dead marriage” is one that is completely unworkable, emotionally barren, and beyond redemption, where its continuation serves no meaningful purpose, either practical or emotional. The Court may dissolve such a marriage when the facts clearly demonstrate a total collapse of the marital relationship, leaving no possibility of cohabitation, and when the continuation of the legal tie would be unjustified and cause undue hardship to the parties.
In determining whether a marriage has irretrievably broken down, the Court considers factors, including the duration of separation (a period of six years or more being significant), the nature and seriousness of allegations exchanged between the parties, the history of mediation or reconciliation efforts and their failure, as well as the socio-economic circumstances of the parties.
Link of the Judgement: https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2014/26304/26304_2014_2_1501_44203_Judgement_01-May-2023.pdf
Legal Takeaway
This judgment marks a transformative shift in divorce law by affirming that a marriage which has become emotionally dead, hostile, and beyond revival can be dissolved even without mutual consent. When years of separation, failed mediation, and irreparable collapse of trust clearly show that the relationship cannot be revived, the Court may declare the marriage “dead” under Article 142—ensuring justice aligns with social and human realities rather than rigid statutory limitations.
B) Case : Munish Kakkar v Nidhi Kakkar (2019 SC)
Facts: The marriage between the parties was solemnized on April 2000. The couple lived together for only about two months, after which the wife frequently travelled between India and Canada. On May 2001, she left for Canada, which the husband claims was without his consent, which she contends to facilitate his immigration. The wife obtained Canadian citizenship in August 2002 and returned to India, thereafter, no immigration process for the husband had been initiated. The couple lived together for about two and a half months, but following disputes, ultimately, in April 2003 the wife left the matrimonial home and returned to Canada.
Decision: The marriage, solemnized in 2000, was marred by prolonged discord and mutual allegations, leading to divorce proceedings in 2003. The Supreme Court acknowledged the irretrievable breakdown of the marriage and the invoked its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to dissolve the marriage. The Court held that although such breakdown is not a statutory ground under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, it may be recognized to ensure complete justice. This judgment bridges the gap in existing divorce law, offering a pragmatic remedy for marriages beyond repair, and reinforces the judiciary’s role in adapting legal principles to evolving social realities.
Link of the judgement: https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2011/11032/11032_2011_12_1501_19231_Judgement_17-Dec-2019.pdf
Legal Takeaway
The Supreme Court acknowledged that prolonged separation, unresolved conflict, and an irreparable collapse of marital communication can render a marriage functionally non-existent. Even though irretrievable breakdown is not a statutory ground under the Hindu Marriage Act, the Court exercised Article 142 to ensure complete justice, recognizing that forcing the continuation of such a fractured relationship would only perpetuate suffering and serve no meaningful purpose.
C) Case: R.Srinivas Kumar vs R.Shametha (2019 SCC)
Facts: The appellant-husband and respondent-wife were married in May 1993. Owing to differences between them, the husband alleged that he was subjected to cruelty. It was noted that the wife frequently resided at her parental home until 1997. Thereafter, in 1999, the husband filed a petition for divorce before the Family Court, Hyderabad, under Sections 13(1)(ia) and 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking dissolution of marriage on the grounds of cruelty and desertion.
Decision: The Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that the parties had been living separately for over 22 years, with all reconciliation efforts having failed, leaving no possibility of reunion. The Court held that a marriage may be dissolved on the ground of irretrievable breakdown when it is satisfied that every attempt to preserve the relationship has been exhausted and the matrimonial bond is beyond repair. Once a marriage has lost all substance, it would be unfair, unjust, and unrealistic for the law to ignore that reality, as doing so would only perpetuate suffering. Prolonged separation renders the marriage a mere legal fiction, and refusal to sever such a tie serves neither the sanctity of marriage nor the well-being of the parties or society.
Link of the Judgement: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/37507130/
Legal Takeaway
This judgment underscores that when a couple has lived apart for over two decades and every attempt at reconciliation has failed, the marriage becomes nothing more than a legal formality. The Supreme Court emphasized that the law cannot insist on preserving a relationship that has lost all emotional, practical, and social meaning. Prolonged separation of 20+ years is a clear indicator of irretrievable breakdown, and dissolving such a marriage protects the dignity, emotional well-being, and freedom of both individuals.
For people experiencing similarly long periods of separation or a marriage that has fully collapsed, seeking guidance from an experienced divorce lawyer in Delhi can help clarify the legal options available and determine whether their circumstances may qualify for a similar remedy.
