- The Court held that simply living separately does not, by itself, amount to a marriage having irretrievably broken down
- Before granting divorce on the ground of “irretrievable breakdown,” courts must conduct a careful, fact-specific inquiry into who caused the separation. The bench emphasized that there must be “cogent evidence of wilful desertion or refusal to cohabit/maintain the marital relationship.”
- The ruling stems from a specific case: a husband had withdrawn an initial divorce petition in 2010 (on cruelty grounds), and later filed a new petition in 2013 alleging his wife deserted him. The trial court had dismissed the second petition; the High Court reversed that decision; but the Supreme Court has now set aside the High Court’s divorce decree and remanded the case for fresh hearing.
The Court’s reasoning
- The Court observed a worrying trend of divorce courts granting dissolution simply because spouses were living apart without examining underlying causes or responsibility.
- It underscored that declaring a marriage over has serious consequences, particularly for any children involved. Thus, courts must bear an “onerous duty” to carefully examine evidence, background circumstances, and social context before declaring marriage dead.
- The decision reinforces that personal-law divorce is not a procedural formality: the court’s role as a sceptic and guardian of social welfare remains critical. Simply because two people are living separately does not automatically mean the marital bond is irreparably broken
Legal implications
- Under existing laws Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 or Special Marriage Act, 1954, “irretrievable breakdown of marriage” is not formally recognized as a ground for divorce
- However, in practice, the Supreme Court has, in certain past cases, used its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to grant divorce on that basis but on a strictly discretionary, case-by-case analysis
- This new ruling demonstrates a shift towards caution: The Court is signalling that granting divorce on breakdown grounds requires more than absence of cohabitation it demands evidence-based evaluation of fault, desertion, or refusal to maintain marital obligations.
Key Take away:
- Separated couples cannot expect a divorce simply because they live apart; the courts must first determine who caused the separation, and whether it was due to desertion, refusal to cohabit, or other fault-based conduct.
- For petitioners seeking divorce, documenting the cause, nature, and circumstances of separation including evidence of desertion, refusal to maintain, or other misconduct will become all the more important.
- For spouses contesting a divorce or alleging unfair treatment (e.g., being forced out of the home), this ruling offers hope: courts have been reminded not to mechanically equate separation with collapse of marriage.
- For families especially where children are involved this could reduce frivolous or impulsive divorce decrees, giving courts a chance to examine responsibilities and consequences more holistically.