The Supreme Court dissolved a marriage under Article 142 of the Constitution, holding that the relationship had irretrievably broken down and was “dead for all practical purposes.” The Court set aside decisions of the Family Court and Andhra Pradesh High Court while directing a comprehensive financial settlement.
The Supreme Court of India dissolved a long-standing marriage on the basis of the irretrievable breakdown of the marital relationship. The Court exercised its special authority under Article 142 of the Constitution of India. A division bench led by Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice R. Mahadevan set aside the earlier decisions of the Family Court and the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, both of which had rejected the husband’s request for divorce. Noting that the marital bond had effectively ceased to exist, the Court ordered a detailed financial settlement.
It directed the husband to transfer Rs. 60,00,000 to the wife, in addition to releasing Rs. 68,00,000, together with the interest accrued on the amount that was already deposited with the Registry of the Court.
Background of the Dispute And Arguments of Paties
The dispute began through cross-appeals connected to a judgment dated September 26, 2014, delivered by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in FCA No. 16/2007 and FCA No. 22/2007. The High Court had confirmed the dismissal of the divorce petition filed by the husband against the wife.
Unhappy with those outcomes, the husband approached the Supreme Court by filing Special Leave Petitions in 2014. The Supreme Court granted leave, converting the matter into civil appeals.
Arguments on Behalf of the Appellant–Husband
Senior counsel for the appellant argued that the parties had been living separately since 2003 and that, despite multiple attempts, they were unable to reunite. The counsel also submitted that the wife’s conduct from the very beginning of the marriage allegedly subjected the husband to severe harassment. It was claimed that during the couple’s stay abroad, the wife made “wild and scandalous allegations” against him, which allegedly led to the husband losing his job. As a result, the husband relocated to India and began living with his parents in Hyderabad.
The husband’s counsel further stated that the family was compelled to sell their Hyderabad residential property and shift to Andhra Pradesh because of continuous harassment. After the move, the appellant’s father reportedly passed away, and the proceeds from the Hyderabad house were said to have been fully depleted on his medical expenses. The husband further claimed that he now has no permanent residence or property in his name, nor in the name of his parents, and currently lives with his mother at his sister’s home in Hyderabad.
On the question of his future, the husband submitted that he has no desire to continue the relationship and wishes to preserve his peace. He also maintained that he had already paid over Rs. 40,00,000 towards the wife’s and their daughter’s maintenance after separation. He added that, as directed earlier by the Supreme Court, he deposited Rs. 68,00,000 with the Registry; according to him, this amount has grown to approximately Rs. 75,00,000 due to accrued interest.
When the bench asked whether the husband would agree to a permanent one-time settlement, he agreed to pay an additional Rs. 60,00,000.
Arguments on Behalf of the Respondent–Wife
The respondent-wife appeared in person via virtual mode and strongly opposed the request for a divorce decree. She argued that the husband’s claims were baseless and fabricated, denying that any harassment or scandalous allegations ever took place. She resisted the dissolution of marriage largely due to social pressure.
When questioned by the Court regarding the actual differences between the parties and despite the bench’s tentative view that the relationship could not be restored through judicial intervention the wife failed to offer a satisfactory explanation. She also refused to accept the proposed amount offered by the husband as a permanent settlement in the event of divorce.
The Court’s Observations and Analysis
The Supreme Court noted that the positions taken by both parties were rigid and uncompromising. The bench observed that it therefore had to arrive at a decisive conclusion, even if it might not be fully acceptable to either side. It emphasized that the matter should be examined objectively, so that both individuals may choose how they wish to live going forward.
While refusing to force the continuation of a failing marriage, the Court stated:
“forcing a relationship, that too of husband and wife, cannot be done by judicial proceedings.”
After taking a realistic view of the circumstances, the bench concluded that
“the marriage between the parties being dead for all practical purposes has to be nullified.”
Final Decision and Directions:
Based on these findings, the Supreme Court allowed the appeals and granted a decree of divorce on the ground of irretrievable breakdown by invoking its jurisdiction under Article 142. The Registry was directed to prepare the decree accordingly.
Also Read: Foreign Law Cannot Dissolve Marriage Under Hindu Marriage Act: Gujarat High Court
The divorce decree was granted subject to the following directions:
- Payment/Transfer of Rs. 60,00,000 within two months:
The husband must transfer or pay Rs. 60,00,000 to the wife within two months, as per his undertaking to the Court, and then file proof of such transfer before the Court. - Release of deposited amount within two weeks:
The amount of Rs. 68,00,000 currently lying deposited with the Registry, along with all accrued interest, must be disbursed to the wife within two weeks after completing the necessary formalities. - Rights of the daughter unaffected:
The Court clarified that the daughter who was not a party to the proceedings—shall not lose any rights. The bench recorded: “shall not be denuded of her rights which are crystallized due to her being the biological daughter of the appellant,” including her rights in relation to the father’s estate and ancestral properties. The Court also recorded the husband’s voluntary undertaking to contribute his share toward the daughter’s marriage when it takes place.
Finally, the bench ordered the quashing of the connected case filed by the husband, FCA No. 93 of 2019, which was pending before a court in Hyderabad. All other pending applications were disposed of.
Case Title: Gopalakrishna Surapaneni vs. Anuradha Surpaneni
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE