The Supreme Court of India, in its recent judgment in A. Ranjithkumar v. E. Kavitha (2025 INSC 978), has once again invoked its extraordinary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to dissolve a marriage that had effectively ceased to exist for over a decade. The ruling highlights the Court’s pragmatic approach in matrimonial disputes where reconciliation is impossible and continuing the legal bond serves no purpose.
Background of the Case
The parties married in February 2009 and soon relocated to the United States, where the husband was employed. Their son was born in April 2010. However, marital discord arose soon after, leading the husband to file a divorce petition in 2012 on the grounds of cruelty and adultery under Sections 13(1)(ia) and (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
In 2016, the Family Court granted a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty but rejected allegations of adultery. The wife appealed, and the Madras High Court in 2018 set aside the divorce, reasoning that the primary allegation of cruelty was based on the rude conduct of the wife’s father—a factor for which the wife herself could not be held responsible.
Meanwhile, in March 2017, the husband contracted a second marriage, further complicating the dispute. He then approached the Supreme Court, seeking dissolution of the marriage under Article 142.
The Supreme Court’s Findings
The Court noted several critical aspects:
- Long Separation: The parties had lived apart since 2010, a period of nearly 15 years by the time of the hearing.
- Remarriage: The husband had remarried in 2017, creating an irreversible situation.
- Breakdown of Relationship: There was no possibility of reconciliation or revival of matrimonial life.
Recognising that the marriage had “irretrievably broken down,” the Court held that prolonging the legal bond would only perpetuate injustice.
Order of the Court
- The marriage was dissolved under Article 142 of the Constitution.
- The husband was directed to pay a one-time permanent alimony of ₹1.25 crore to the wife and their son.
- Payment was to be made in five equal quarterly instalments between September 2025 and September 2026.
- Importantly, the Court stipulated that any default would result in the recall of the divorce order, with forfeiture of any amount already paid.
Legal Significance
- Irretrievable Breakdown Doctrine: While not expressly recognised in the Hindu Marriage Act, the Supreme Court has repeatedly used Article 142 to dissolve marriages where cohabitation is impossible. This case adds to a growing body of precedents affirming judicial intervention in dead marriages.
- Responsibility for Third-Party Conduct: The judgment reaffirms that cruelty under matrimonial law must flow from a spouse’s own conduct, not from external parties like parents or relatives.
- Balancing Equities: By granting divorce but securing a substantial financial settlement for the wife and child, the Court sought to balance the equities between the estranged spouses.
Broader Implications
This judgment underscores the need for legislative clarity on irretrievable breakdown of marriage as a statutory ground for divorce. The Law Commission has recommended it, and the judiciary has repeatedly emphasised its necessity. Until such reform occurs, Article 142 remains the Supreme Court’s tool to prevent injustice in cases where marriage is reduced to a mere legal fiction.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s decision in A. Ranjithkumar v. E. Kavitha is a pragmatic recognition of marital realities. By dissolving a long-dead relationship and awarding substantial alimony, the Court balanced compassion with justice. It also reignites the debate on whether “irretrievable breakdown of marriage” should finally find a place in India’s statutory divorce law.