Summary
The Supreme Court dissolved a marriage under Article 142 after more than two decades of separation, minimal cohabitation, failed reconciliation and sustained litigation. A spouse’s stated wish to continue did not prevent relief where the relationship had irretrievably failed. No permanent alimony was awarded because both parties were medical professionals with sufficient and equal earnings.
Issues
- Whether the marriage had irretrievably broken down so as to justify Article 142 relief despite opposition.
- Whether permanent alimony was warranted in light of the parties’ resources.
Provisions considered
- Article 142, Constitution of IndiaThe Court exercised discretionary power to dissolve an irretrievably broken marriage and assessed the spouses’ circumstances before declining permanent alimony. (¶¶ 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20)
Held
- Applying Shilpa Shailesh, the Supreme Court may dissolve a marriage under Article 142 despite one spouse’s opposition where established facts show complete failure, no prospect of cohabitation and no justification for maintaining the formal bond. The opposing spouse’s circumstances must also be balanced. (¶ 13)
- Very limited cohabitation, over twenty-two years of separation, independent lives, unsuccessful mediation and extensive litigation established that this marriage had ceased to exist in substance. The wife’s stated willingness did not overcome the objective history and bitterness. (¶¶ 14, 15, 16, 17, 18)
- Divorce was granted for irretrievable breakdown under Article 142. As both parties were professionally qualified medical doctors with sufficient and equal earnings, no permanent alimony was awarded. (¶¶ 19, 20)
Result
Appeal allowed; High Court judgment set aside and marriage dissolved under Article 142. No permanent alimony awarded.