Marriage Is Not a Life Sentence, Says Supreme Court; Ends 25-Year Dead Relationship

The Supreme Court on December 15, 2025 held that when spouses hold irreconcilable views on married life and refuse to accommodate each other over a prolonged period, such conduct amounts to cruelty to both parties. The Court dissolved a marriage that had effectively broken down over more than two decades, invoking its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to do complete justice.

A Bench comprising Justice Manmohan and Justice Joymalya Bagchi made these observations while allowing an appeal filed by a husband against a 2011 judgment of the Gauhati High Court, Shillong Bench, which had set aside a decree of divorce granted by a trial court.

The Supreme Court held that in matrimonial disputes between two individuals, courts should not sit in judgment over which spouse’s approach to marriage is right or wrong. What assumes significance, the Bench said, is the fact that both spouses have strongly held positions and have refused to adjust or accommodate each other for a long period, which itself constitutes cruelty.

The Court found that the marriage between the parties had irretrievably broken down. Exercising its extraordinary powers under Article 142, the Bench dissolved the marriage, noting that reconciliation was no longer possible and continuing the litigation would serve no useful purpose.

The Bench clarified that while courts should ordinarily strive to preserve the sanctity of marriage and avoid dissolving it at the mere asking of one party, this principle cannot be applied mechanically. In cases where parties have lived separately for decades, with no emotional or social bond remaining, the marriage survives only in name.

In the present case, the parties had been living separately for nearly 24 years. There were no children from the wedlock, and repeated efforts at reconciliation had failed. The Court observed that granting divorce in such circumstances would not adversely affect any third party.

The marriage was solemnised on August 4, 2000, at Shillong, according to Hindu rites and rituals. Prior to marriage, both parties had been working together since 1992 as Development Officers with the Life Insurance Corporation of India.

The respondent wife claimed that she was compelled to leave the matrimonial home in 2001 after the husband and his family allegedly pressured her to give up her job, despite her responsibility to financially support her elderly and ailing mother, her brother, and other dependents.

In 2003, the husband instituted divorce proceedings, which were dismissed in 2006. He initially approached the High Court but withdrew the plea in 2007 to file a fresh suit. In the subsequent proceedings, he alleged that the wife had deserted him with a deliberate intention of not returning to the matrimonial home.

In 2010, the trial court granted a decree of divorce on the ground of desertion. However, on April 13, 2011, the Gauhati High Court allowed the wife’s appeal, holding that there was no intention on her part to permanently abandon the marriage.

Reversing the High Court’s judgment, the Supreme Court noted that matrimonial litigation between the parties had commenced within two years of marriage and had continued for more than 22 years. The prolonged separation and unending litigation, the Court said, had reduced the marriage to a mere legal formality.

The Bench reiterated that the Supreme Court has consistently held that a long period of separation without any possibility of reunion amounts to cruelty to both spouses. It referred to the Constitution Bench decision in Shilpa Sailesh vs Varun Sreenivasan (2023), which clarified that while exercising powers under Article 142, the Supreme Court is not bound by the fault-based framework governing divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act.

The Court further observed that keeping matrimonial disputes pending indefinitely only perpetuates a marriage on paper. It held that severing ties in cases where litigation has continued for an inordinately long time is often in the best interest of both the parties and society at large.

Concluding that no useful purpose would be served by prolonging the dispute, the Supreme Court restored the trial court’s decree of divorce and set aside the High Court’s judgment.

Case Title: Nayan Bhowmick vs Aparna Chakraborty

Bench: Justice Manmohan and Justice Joymalya Bagchi

Date of Judgment: December 15, 2025