The Supreme Court of India has dissolved a long-standing estranged marriage, observing that forcing a “dead relationship” to persist only intensifies personal agony and societal burden. The verdict came in a case where the couple had been living separately since October 2009, and the husband had been acquitted of all cruelty charges filed by the wife.
A two-judge bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta ruled that the marriage had suffered an irretrievable breakdown, and no purpose would be served by legally continuing the bond.
“In the case at hand, it is clear as daylight that the continuance of marriage shall only fuel animosity and litigation between the parties, which runs contrary to the ethos of matrimonial harmony envisioned by the law,” the bench noted in its order.
16-Year Estrangement and Legal Turmoil
The couple had been married since May 2008 under Hindu rites, but marital discord began shortly thereafter. Since 2009, they had been living apart, and the wife filed a case of cruelty against the husband and his family. However, the husband was later acquitted, and no charges were upheld.
The Supreme Court noted that this false allegation was central to the breakdown of trust. “It cannot be expected of the appellant to now continue in a marital bond with a partner who had filed and fought a false case against her husband and in-laws,” the bench said.
Supreme Court Exercises Article 142
Invoking its extraordinary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court granted the decree of divorce and emphasized the importance of individual dignity, emotional well-being, and practical justice.
“The institution of marriage is rooted in dignity, mutual respect, and shared companionship. When these foundational aspects are irreparably lost, compelling a couple to remain legally bound serves no beneficial purpose,” the bench observed.
The court also directed the husband to pay monthly maintenance of ₹15,000 to his estranged wife and their minor child.
Setting a Precedent for Marital Justice
The judgment reaffirmed earlier jurisprudence, including the Amutha vs AR Subramaniam (2023) case, where the court highlighted that the welfare and dignity of both spouses must take precedence over societal expectations.
The ruling is likely to have wider implications for similar cases pending in family courts, especially where marriages have long ceased to function, but legal dissolution has been delayed due to procedural barriers or lack of mutual consent.
