In India, divorce laws have traditionally been governed by personal laws—Hindu Marriage Act, Muslim Personal Law, Christian Law, and more—each offering specific grounds for ending a marriage. But a groundbreaking legal avenue has emerged: the Supreme Court can now directly grant divorce using Article 142 of the Constitution, based on the irretrievable breakdown of marriage. As a legal analyst with over 15 years of experience in Indian jurisprudence, I’ve seen how this unique power reshapes divorce proceedings. Unlike statutory laws, this ground isn’t found in any legal textbook—it’s a judicial innovation exclusive to the apex court. Let’s dive into this new divorce law, a recent case, and what it means for couples in 2025.
Overview: A New Path to Divorce
Divorce in India typically follows a rigid process—grounds like cruelty, adultery, or desertion under laws like the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. But what happens when a marriage is beyond repair, yet doesn’t fit these boxes? Enter Article 142, which empowers the Supreme Court to pass any order necessary for “complete justice.” The irretrievable breakdown of marriage—a situation where a couple’s relationship is irreparably shattered—has become a recognized basis for divorce, solely at the Supreme Court’s discretion. A recent case highlights this shift, showing how the court steps in when love turns to legal battles.
The Case: A Marriage in Ruins
Background
- Couple: A Hindu husband and wife married in 2018 under Hindu ceremonies.
- Relocation: They settled in the United States post-marriage.
- Duration Together: Just 80 days (roughly 2.5 months) before separating.
Escalation
- Conflicts: Fights, physical violence, and shouting matches erupted soon after the wedding.
- Separation: After 80 days, they parted ways—the wife returned to India, the husband stayed in the USA.
- Legal Battles:
- Wife filed a Section 498A (cruelty) case against the husband and his family.
- Husband countered with cases alleging violence by the wife.
- Both dragged each other’s families into multiple lawsuits—criminal and civil.
Supreme Court Petition
Fed up with endless litigation, the couple approached the Supreme Court with a petition under Article 142, requesting divorce on the grounds of irretrievable breakdown of marriage. This wasn’t a family court filing—it went straight to the top, leveraging a constitutional power no lower court can wield.
What Is the Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage?
Definition
- Concept: A marriage so broken that no love, respect, or meaningful bond remains, making reconciliation impossible.
- Legal Status: Not listed in any Indian statute (e.g., Hindu Marriage Act or Special Marriage Act)—it’s a judicially crafted ground.
Why Only Supreme Court?
- Article 142: This constitutional provision allows the Supreme Court to issue orders for “complete justice” when statutory remedies fall short.
- Precedents: Cases like Shilpa Sailesh vs. Varun Sreenivasan (2023) and Kiran Jyoti Maini (2024) show the court using this power to dissolve irreparable marriages.
Unlike traditional divorce laws requiring proof of fault (e.g., cruelty under Section 13, HMA), irretrievable breakdown focuses on the marriage’s collapse, not blame. It’s a lifeline for couples trapped in legal limbo.
How Does the Supreme Court Decide?
Evaluation Criteria
The Supreme Court doesn’t grant divorce casually—it conducts a factual analysis to confirm the breakdown. Key factors include:
- Time Spent Together: In this case, only 80 days—a fleeting union.
- Duration Apart: Years since separation (2018 to 2025), with no reconciliation attempts.
- Legal Disputes: Multiple cases (498A, violence claims) signal deep animosity.
- Reconciliation Efforts: Any mediation or settlement tries? Here, none succeeded.
- Future Prospects: No kids, no shared life—love, emotion, and respect long gone.
Judicial Reasoning
- Observation: The court noted the marriage was “never good from the start”—80 days of cohabitation followed by relentless lawsuits.
- Conclusion: No “meaningful marital relationship” remained. Forcing them to stay married served no purpose—Article 142 was invoked to end it.
The court emphasized that irretrievable breakdown isn’t a free pass—each case is scrutinized. In Rinku Baheti (2024), it reiterated that reconciliation must be impossible before granting relief.
Alimony and Compensation: The Financial Angle
Maintenance Question
- Wife’s Status: She’s earning well, self-sufficient—no need for ongoing maintenance.
- Court View: If a spouse can support themselves, periodic payments aren’t warranted.
One-Time Alimony
- Amount: The Supreme Court ordered the husband to pay ₹25 lakhs (₹2,500,000) as a one-time alimony settlement.
- Basis: Factors considered (per Rajnesh vs. Neha, 2020, and others):
- Social Status: Education, profession, and societal standing of both.
- Living Standards: Daily expenses and lifestyle needs.
- Income Sources: Salaries, property, or rentals (none beyond earnings here).
- Litigation Costs: Legal expenses incurred by the wife.
- Dependents: No kids or parental liabilities.
Precedent
Cases like Vishal Shah vs. Monalisa Gupta (2024) guide such calculations. Here, ₹25 lakhs balanced the wife’s independence with fair compensation for the marriage’s fallout.
Why Article 142 Matters
Beyond Statutory Limits
- Flexibility: Unlike rigid family laws, Article 142 lets the court act when justice demands it—e.g., when a couple’s stuck despite no statutory ground.
- Awareness: Many don’t know the Constitution itself offers this divorce route.
Safeguards
- Reconciliation First: The court exhausts all settlement options (e.g., mediation) before ruling, as seen in Kiran Jyoti Maini.
- Case-by-Case: Not every petition succeeds—facts must scream irreparable collapse.
This power ensures no one’s forced into a dead marriage, a principle rooted in justice, not just law.
Pros and Cons of This Approach
Pros
- Relief: Frees couples from toxic, irreparable unions.
- Justice: Article 142 bypasses delays in lower courts (e.g., mandatory cooling-off periods).
- Precedent: Sets a modern standard for divorce law evolution.
Cons
- Exclusivity: Only the Supreme Court can use it—costly and inaccessible for many.
- Subjectivity: “Irretrievable breakdown” lacks a fixed definition, risking inconsistent rulings.
Verdict: A Game-Changer for Indian Divorce Law
The Supreme Court’s divorce power under Article 142 marks a seismic shift in India’s legal landscape. In this 2018 marriage case, a mere 80 days together, followed by years of separation and lawsuits, convinced the court of an irretrievable breakdown. Using its constitutional might, it dissolved the union and awarded ₹25 lakhs in alimony—a fair end to a bitter saga. As someone who’s studied Indian law for over a decade, I see this as progress: it’s not just about ending marriages but delivering justice when all else fails. Will this push Parliament to codify irretrievable breakdown into law? Time will tell.
What do you think—should this be a standard divorce ground? Share your thoughts below!
Irretrievable breakdown of marriage means a couple’s relationship is so broken—no love, respect, or bond remains—that reconciliation is impossible. The Supreme Court grants divorce under Article 142 when this applies, as seen in a 2018 case ending in 2025.
The Supreme Court uses Article 142 to grant divorce for irretrievable breakdown, assessing time together (e.g., 80 days), separation length, legal battles, and reconciliation odds. If no bond remains, it dissolves the marriage for justice.
In a 2025 Supreme Court case under Article 142, the wife got ₹25 lakhs alimony (no maintenance) as she’s self-earning. Factors like income, status, and expenses decide it, per Rajnesh vs. Neha (2020).
