Read Time: 10 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court has on April 22, 2025 dissolved the matrimonial alliance of a couple entered into marriage in 2012 after finding that the marriage has completely and irrevocably broken down as multiple attempts at reconciliation through mediation have failed and neither party has shown any willingness or inclination to restore the marital bond.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol and Sandeep Mehta noted the parties have lived separate lives for over a decade, and there is a complete absence of marital ties;

"In our considered view, continuing such a marriage would only perpetuate hardship and serve no useful purpose. This is a fit case for exercise of this court’s jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to do complete justice and dissolve the marriage on the ground of irretrievable breakdown," the bench said.

The court allowed the appeal filed by the man but allowed the woman to have visitation rights with their daughter, living in exclusive care and custody of her father since infancy.

Notably, the woman who worked as agricultural coordinator with the Bihar government claimed no alimony from the appellant-man.

"We are of the view that, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, she ought not to be deprived of access to her daughter. Depriving the mother of all contact would not only cause emotional harm to her but may also adversely impact the child. In the interest of justice, equity, and the welfare of the child, we deem it appropriate to grant visitation rights to the respondent so that she may gradually rebuild a bond with her daughter. This way the daughter will also be blessed with the love, affection and guidance from her mother," the bench added on the visitation rights of the mother.

The court directed that the respondent would be entitled to visitation rights with her daughter on two days each month. The parties would mutually fix convenient dates each month, on which the respondent may visit the child at the appellant’s residence and spend quality time with her. 

The court directed the parties to cooperate in good faith and ensure smooth implementation of this arrangement. All reasonable expenses incurred in facilitating these visits shall be borne by the appellant. It is clarified that this arrangement does not amount to a determination of custody, and both parties shall remain at liberty to approach the appropriate forum for adjudication of custody rights, if they so desire, the bench further said.

Brief Background

The appellant-man here challenged the Jharkhand High Court's judgment which on June 28, 2023 dismissed his plea against the Ranchi court's 2019 order refusing to allow his plea for dissolution of marriage under Sections 13(1)(ia) and (iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

The marriage between the appellant and the respondent was solemnized on November 24, 2012. Two children were born out of the said wedlock. The first child, a daughter, was born on August 17, 2013. Thereafter, on March 06, 2014, the appellant instituted a petition under Sections 13(1)(ia) and (iii) of the HMA before the Family Court, Ranchi, seeking a decree of divorce. At the time of filing the suit, the respondent was pregnant with their second child.

The respondent-woman, thereafter, filed a case, alleging mental and physical cruelty against the appellant and his parents, invoking provisions of Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. On November 30, 2014, she gave birth to their second child, who was diagnosed with cerebral palsy. 

The High Court rejected the man's plea, holding since the parties cohabited until March 2014, the allegations of cruelty made prior thereto could not be sustained, particularly in view of the fact that the second child was born on November 30, 2014.

Before the Top Court, the man contended, the parties have lived separately for over eleven years and that the relationship has been irreparably damaged by prolonged hostility, deep-seated bitterness, and mutual allegations of a grave and serious nature.      

The respondent-woman stated that the second child, born in November 2014 and diagnosed with cerebral palsy, was under her sole care from birth. Unfortunately, the said child passed away after a few years. She said that she single- handedly provided care and support for the special needs of the second child during this time. 

The appellant further submitted that, despite the prolonged separation of more than a decade, the respondent never approached any court seeking custody or visitation rights concerning the elder daughter. He thus asserted that the custody of the child has lawfully and practically remained with him. Nonetheless, he said that he has no objection if reasonable visitation rights are granted to the respondent at his residence.

Case Title: Ramanuj Kumar v. Priyanka