Invoking Article 142, the Supreme Court dissolved an irretrievably broken marriage, holding that its continuance would only prolong agony. The Court granted divorce despite trial and High Court findings, stressing complete justice over rigid statutory grounds of law.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court, exercised its extraordinary constitutional powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to dissolve a marriage that had irretrievably broken down, despite concurrent findings of the Trial Court and the High Court rejecting the husband’s plea for divorce on statutory grounds.
The apex court stated that “continuing the marriage would serve no meaningful purpose.”
Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta ruled that the marriage had irretrievably broken down and overturned the lower courts’ rejection of the divorce petition, granting a decree of divorce with a permanent alimony payment of Rs.20,00,000.
The husband and wife, both teachers, were married on June 22, 2003, in Morinda, District Ropar, Punjab, and they did not have any children. The marital discord began early in their marriage. The husband claimed that after an accident in February 2005, his wife neglected to care for him and tried to coerce him into signing documents.
This led to an initial civil suit for an injunction, which was later withdrawn after a compromise. By November 2005, the couple had moved to Nawanshahr, yet shortly thereafter, the wife left their home and did not return.
The husband’s first attempt to seek restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, was withdrawn in 2007.
Following this, on December 14, 2009, he filed for divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, citing cruelty and desertion.
However, the Trial Court dismissed the petition on August 14, 2012, concluding that the allegations were unproven. The High Court of Punjab and Haryana upheld this dismissal on February 28, 2014, leading the husband to appeal to the Supreme Court.
In the Supreme Court, the husband contended that the marriage was effectively over, emphasizing their two decades of separation and irreconcilable differences. He requested dissolution of the marriage under Article 142.
The wife opposed this, arguing that he had not made genuine attempts at reconciliation and denied the allegations of cruelty, asserting that the circumstances did not warrant the invocation of Article 142.
After hearing the arguments and meeting with both parties, the Bench acknowledged the undisputed fact that they had been living apart for nearly twenty years. The Court noted the lack of success in attempts at reconciliation, including a referral to the Supreme Court Mediation Centre.
Regarding the futility of maintaining the marriage, the Court remarked,
“At this stage, there appears to be no possibility of reconciliation between the parties. The continuance of the marital bond, in such circumstances, would serve no meaningful purpose and would only prolong the agony of both parties. We are therefore of the considered view that this is a fit case where the marriage has irretrievably broken down, warranting exercise of this Court’s powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India.”
The Court then addressed the matter of permanent alimony.
Also Read: Foreign Law Cannot Dissolve Marriage Under Hindu Marriage Act: Gujarat High Court
Both parties, as government teachers in Punjab, were discussed in terms of their financial positions. While the husband proposed to pay Rs.15,00,000, the Court deemed a higher amount more appropriate, given the lengthy separation and their professional status.
The Bench concluded,
“Keeping in view the respective positions of the parties, their long separation, and other attendant circumstances, we are of the view that a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lakhs only) would be a just and reasonable amount towards permanent alimony, payable as a one-time settlement.”
The Supreme Court accepted the appeal, reversing the decisions made by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana and the Additional District Judge.
The marriage was dissolved under Article 142 of the Constitution, contingent upon the husband paying Rs.20,00,000 to the wife within two months.
Additionally, the Court directed that once the payment was made, “any civil or criminal proceedings, if still pending between the parties, shall stand closed.”
Article 142(1) says that the Supreme Court can make any order needed to ensure full justice in a matter, even if there is no specific law covering the situation.
- It allows the Supreme Court to go beyond strict laws when following the law alone would cause injustice.
- It fills legal gaps where legislation is silent or inadequate.
- It ensures that justice is practical, fair, and humane, not merely technical.
Case Title: Jatinder Kumar vs. Jeewan Lata
Read Attachment