Supreme Court Dissolves Long-Separated Marriage Under Article 142 and Fixes One-Time Permanent Alimony

Case Background

The matrimonial dispute arose between the appellant-husband and the respondent-wife who were married on 22 June 2003 at Morinda in District Ropar, Punjab. No child was born from the wedlock. Both parties were employed as teachers in government schools in the State of Punjab.

The appellant contended that the marital relationship became strained soon after marriage. In October 2004, the parties shifted to Ropar following the appellant’s posting. In February 2005, the appellant met with an accident and remained under medical treatment for about a week. According to him, during this period the respondent neither attended to him nor took care of him and allegedly attempted to obtain his signatures on certain documents under duress, leading him to institute a civil suit seeking injunction against the respondent and her family members. The suit was subsequently withdrawn pursuant to a compromise.

Thereafter, in November 2005, the parties shifted back to Nawanshahr, Punjab. Soon thereafter, the respondent-wife left the matrimonial home and did not return. The husband initially filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking restitution of conjugal rights, which was dismissed as withdrawn. Subsequently, on 14 December 2009, he filed a divorce petition under Section 13 of the Act alleging cruelty and desertion.

What The Lower Authorities Held

The Trial Court dismissed the divorce petition filed by the appellant-husband, holding that he had failed to establish the allegations of cruelty and desertion against the respondent-wife. The Court found that the evidence on record was insufficient to prove the statutory grounds required for dissolution of marriage under the Hindu Marriage Act.

The appellant challenged this decision before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. The High Court, by its order dated 28 February 2014, affirmed the findings of the Trial Court and dismissed the appeal, thereby upholding the refusal to grant divorce.

The Court’s Reasoning

Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage

The Supreme Court noted that the parties had been living separately for about twenty years. The long and continuous separation clearly demonstrated that the marital relationship had broken down irretrievably. The Court observed that despite opportunities, including reference to the Supreme Court Mediation Centre, no amicable settlement could be reached between the parties.

The strain in the marital relationship was evident from the factual background and the submissions made before the Court. Given the prolonged separation and complete absence of any likelihood of reunion, the Court concluded that the marital bond had ceased to exist in substance.

Exercise of Power Under Article 142

Although the lower courts had found that statutory grounds of cruelty and desertion were not proved, the Supreme Court considered whether it should nevertheless dissolve the marriage in exercise of its constitutional powers. Article 142 empowers the Court to pass such orders as are necessary to do complete justice between the parties.

The Court held that where a marriage has irretrievably broken down and continuation of the marital tie would only prolong agony and hardship, it is appropriate to invoke Article 142 to dissolve the marriage. The provision allows the Court to transcend technical limitations of statutory provisions in exceptional circumstances to ensure substantive justice.

Assessment of Reconciliation Possibility

The Court interacted with both parties, who appeared in person, and considered their respective submissions. The respondent-wife denied the allegations of cruelty and asserted that the appellant had not made sincere efforts for reconciliation. However, the Court found that the prolonged separation of nearly two decades and failure of mediation indicated that reconciliation was no longer feasible.

In such circumstances, insisting on continuation of the marriage would amount to perpetuating a legal relationship devoid of any real emotional or social foundation.

Determination of Permanent Alimony

Upon deciding to dissolve the marriage, the Court addressed the issue of permanent alimony. It took note that both parties were employed as government teachers in Punjab. During interaction before the Court, the appellant-husband expressed willingness to pay ₹15,00,000 as permanent alimony.

Considering the long period of separation, the employment status and financial positions of both parties, and other attendant circumstances, the Court held that a sum of ₹20,00,000 would be just and reasonable as one-time permanent alimony payable to the respondent-wife in full and final settlement of all her claims.

Statutory Interpretation

The dispute initially arose under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, which provides statutory grounds for divorce such as cruelty and desertion. The lower courts had declined to grant divorce on the ground that these statutory requirements were not established on evidence.

The Supreme Court clarified that the absence of proof of statutory grounds does not bar the exercise of its constitutional powers under Article 142 in appropriate cases. While irretrievable breakdown of marriage is not expressly recognised as a ground under the Hindu Marriage Act, the Court has consistently invoked Article 142 to dissolve marriages where the relationship has become completely unworkable and reconciliation is impossible.

This interpretation ensures that rigid application of statutory provisions does not result in injustice where the marital relationship has ceased to exist in reality.

Why This Judgment Matters

This judgment reaffirms the Supreme Court’s equitable jurisdiction to grant divorce on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage in exceptional cases. It highlights that matrimonial disputes must be resolved in a pragmatic manner, especially where long separation has rendered the relationship beyond repair.

The ruling also clarifies that the Court may override the technical failure to prove statutory grounds when continuation of the marriage would only prolong emotional and legal hardship. By awarding reasonable permanent alimony, the Court ensured financial protection for the respondent while bringing finality to protracted litigation.

For matrimonial jurisprudence, the decision underscores the continued relevance of Article 142 as a constitutional tool to achieve complete justice in deserving cases where statutory remedies prove inadequate.

Final Outcome

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the orders of the High Court dated 28 February 2014 and the Trial Court dated 14 August 2012 which had refused to grant divorce. In exercise of powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, the Court dissolved the marriage between the parties on the ground of irretrievable breakdown.

The dissolution was made subject to payment of ₹20,00,000 by the appellant-husband to the respondent-wife as full and final settlement of all her claims, including permanent alimony. The amount was directed to be paid within two months, and the decree of divorce was to be drawn upon the Registry being furnished with proof of such payment. The respondent-wife was directed to provide necessary bank details for facilitating the payment. All pending civil or criminal proceedings between the parties were ordered to stand closed.

Case Details

• Case Title: Jatinder Kumar v. Jeewan Lata
• Citation: 2025 INSC 1463
• Court: Supreme Court of India
• Bench: Vikram Nath, J.; Sandeep Mehta, J.
• Date of Judgment: December 18, 2025