Full Judgment Text
2025 INSC 543
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 14276 OF 2024
RAMANUJ KUMAR …APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
PRIYANKA …RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
VIKRAM NATH, J.
1. The present appeal arises from the judgment dated
28.06.2023 passed by the High Court of Jharkhand
in First Appeal No. 242 of 2019, whereby the
appellant/husband’s appeal was dismissed,
affirming the judgment dated 02.07.2019 of the
Family Court, Ranchi in Original Suit No. 107 of
2014. By the said judgment, the Family Court
dismissed the appellant’s petition for dissolution of
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
NEETU KHAJURIA
Date: 2025.04.22
19:39:39 IST
Reason:
Civil Appeal No. 14276 of 2024 Page 1 of 8
marriage under Sections 13(1)(ia) and (iii) of the
1
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 .
2. The marriage between the appellant and the
respondent was solemnized on 24.11.2012. Two
children were born out of the said wedlock. The first
child, a daughter, was born on 17.08.2013.
Thereafter, on 06.03.2014, the appellant instituted a
petition under Sections 13(1)(ia) and (iii) of the HMA
before the Family Court, Ranchi (M.T.S. No. 107 of
2014), seeking a decree of divorce. At the time of filing
the suit, the respondent was pregnant with their
second child.
2.1. Subsequently, the respondent filed Complaint
Case No. 1980/2014, alleging mental and
physical cruelty against the appellant and his
parents, invoking provisions of Section 498A of
the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3 and
4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. On
30.11.2014, the respondent gave birth to their
second child, who was diagnosed with cerebral
palsy. In the divorce proceedings, the appellant
alleged that the respondent subjected him and
1
HMA
Civil Appeal No. 14276 of 2024 Page 2 of 8
his family to verbal abuse, amounting to cruelty.
These allegations were denied by the
respondent, who countered with allegations of
mental and physical cruelty inflicted upon her
by the appellant.
2.2. Upon hearing both parties, the Family Court vide
its order dated 02.07.2019, dismissed the
appellant’s petition for divorce. Aggrieved, the
appellant preferred First Appeal No. 242 of 2019
before the High Court.
2.3. The High Court, by the impugned judgment
dated 28.06.2023, dismissed the appeal,
holding inter alia that 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 30.11.2014.
2.4. Aggrieved by the concurrent findings of both
Courts below, the appellant has approached
this Court.
3. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for
both parties and have carefully perused the record.
Civil Appeal No. 14276 of 2024 Page 3 of 8
Both parties were also present appellant through
video conferencing and respondent in person. They
were also heard.
4. The appellant now seeks dissolution of marriage on
the ground of irretrievable breakdown. It is submitted
that 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 marriage, it is contended, has
reached a point of no return, with no possibility of
reconciliation or revival.
5. It is undisputed that two children were born out of
the wedlock. The appellant submits that the elder
daughter, presently aged about 12 years, has been in
his exclusive care and custody since her infancy. She
has been residing with him since the age of six
months, and all expenses relating to her education
and upbringing are being borne solely by him.
6. On the other hand, the respondent states 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. The respondent submits that she single-
Civil Appeal No. 14276 of 2024 Page 4 of 8
handedly provided care and support for the special
needs of the second child during this time.
7. The appellant further submits that, despite the
prolonged separation of more than a decade, the
respondent has never approached any court seeking
custody or visitation rights concerning the elder
daughter. He thus asserts that the custody of the
child has lawfully and practically remained with him.
Nonetheless, he expresses that he has no objection if
reasonable visitation rights are granted to the
respondent at his residence.
8. In response to a query from this Court as to why she
never pursued custody or visitation of her daughter
during these years, the respondent stated that she
was entirely occupied with the care of her second
child, who required extensive attention and support
due to her medical condition. Further being a
government servant working as Agricultural
Coordinator with the State Government of Bihar she
had to discharge her official duties as well. In these
circumstances, she lacked the time, resources, and
emotional capacity to simultaneously pursue
litigation for custody or visitation. Additionally the
Civil Appeal No. 14276 of 2024 Page 5 of 8
respondent has not claimed any alimony from the
appellant.
9. From the factual matrix before us, it is evident that
the marriage has completely and irrevocably broken
down. Multiple attempts at reconciliation through
mediation have failed. Neither party has shown any
willingness or inclination to restore the marital bond.
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.
10. While we note that the respondent has neither filed
nor pursued any formal petition for custody or
visitation of the elder daughter, 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,
Civil Appeal No. 14276 of 2024 Page 6 of 8
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.
11. Accordingly, we direct that the respondent shall be
entitled to visitation rights with her daughter on two
days each month. The parties shall 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
parties are directed 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.
12. In light of the foregoing discussion, the appeal is
allowed. The marriage between the appellant and the
respondent stands dissolved under Article 142 of the
Constitution of India on the ground of irretrievable
Civil Appeal No. 14276 of 2024 Page 7 of 8
breakdown of marriage. The respondent shall be
entitled to visitation in the terms set forth above.
13. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
……………………………………J.
(VIKRAM NATH)
……………………………………J.
(SANJAY KAROL)
……………………………………J.
(SANEEP MEHTA)
NEW DELHI
APRIL 22, 2025
Civil Appeal No. 14276 of 2024 Page 8 of 8
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 14276 OF 2024
RAMANUJ KUMAR …APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
PRIYANKA …RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
VIKRAM NATH, J.
1. The present appeal arises from the judgment dated
28.06.2023 passed by the High Court of Jharkhand
in First Appeal No. 242 of 2019, whereby the
appellant/husband’s appeal was dismissed,
affirming the judgment dated 02.07.2019 of the
Family Court, Ranchi in Original Suit No. 107 of
2014. By the said judgment, the Family Court
dismissed the appellant’s petition for dissolution of
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
NEETU KHAJURIA
Date: 2025.04.22
19:39:39 IST
Reason:
Civil Appeal No. 14276 of 2024 Page 1 of 8
marriage under Sections 13(1)(ia) and (iii) of the
1
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 .
2. The marriage between the appellant and the
respondent was solemnized on 24.11.2012. Two
children were born out of the said wedlock. The first
child, a daughter, was born on 17.08.2013.
Thereafter, on 06.03.2014, the appellant instituted a
petition under Sections 13(1)(ia) and (iii) of the HMA
before the Family Court, Ranchi (M.T.S. No. 107 of
2014), seeking a decree of divorce. At the time of filing
the suit, the respondent was pregnant with their
second child.
2.1. Subsequently, the respondent filed Complaint
Case No. 1980/2014, alleging mental and
physical cruelty against the appellant and his
parents, invoking provisions of Section 498A of
the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3 and
4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. On
30.11.2014, the respondent gave birth to their
second child, who was diagnosed with cerebral
palsy. In the divorce proceedings, the appellant
alleged that the respondent subjected him and
1
HMA
Civil Appeal No. 14276 of 2024 Page 2 of 8
his family to verbal abuse, amounting to cruelty.
These allegations were denied by the
respondent, who countered with allegations of
mental and physical cruelty inflicted upon her
by the appellant.
2.2. Upon hearing both parties, the Family Court vide
its order dated 02.07.2019, dismissed the
appellant’s petition for divorce. Aggrieved, the
appellant preferred First Appeal No. 242 of 2019
before the High Court.
2.3. The High Court, by the impugned judgment
dated 28.06.2023, dismissed the appeal,
holding inter alia that 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 30.11.2014.
2.4. Aggrieved by the concurrent findings of both
Courts below, the appellant has approached
this Court.
3. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for
both parties and have carefully perused the record.
Civil Appeal No. 14276 of 2024 Page 3 of 8
Both parties were also present appellant through
video conferencing and respondent in person. They
were also heard.
4. The appellant now seeks dissolution of marriage on
the ground of irretrievable breakdown. It is submitted
that 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 marriage, it is contended, has
reached a point of no return, with no possibility of
reconciliation or revival.
5. It is undisputed that two children were born out of
the wedlock. The appellant submits that the elder
daughter, presently aged about 12 years, has been in
his exclusive care and custody since her infancy. She
has been residing with him since the age of six
months, and all expenses relating to her education
and upbringing are being borne solely by him.
6. On the other hand, the respondent states 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. The respondent submits that she single-
Civil Appeal No. 14276 of 2024 Page 4 of 8
handedly provided care and support for the special
needs of the second child during this time.
7. The appellant further submits that, despite the
prolonged separation of more than a decade, the
respondent has never approached any court seeking
custody or visitation rights concerning the elder
daughter. He thus asserts that the custody of the
child has lawfully and practically remained with him.
Nonetheless, he expresses that he has no objection if
reasonable visitation rights are granted to the
respondent at his residence.
8. In response to a query from this Court as to why she
never pursued custody or visitation of her daughter
during these years, the respondent stated that she
was entirely occupied with the care of her second
child, who required extensive attention and support
due to her medical condition. Further being a
government servant working as Agricultural
Coordinator with the State Government of Bihar she
had to discharge her official duties as well. In these
circumstances, she lacked the time, resources, and
emotional capacity to simultaneously pursue
litigation for custody or visitation. Additionally the
Civil Appeal No. 14276 of 2024 Page 5 of 8
respondent has not claimed any alimony from the
appellant.
9. From the factual matrix before us, it is evident that
the marriage has completely and irrevocably broken
down. Multiple attempts at reconciliation through
mediation have failed. Neither party has shown any
willingness or inclination to restore the marital bond.
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.
10. While we note that the respondent has neither filed
nor pursued any formal petition for custody or
visitation of the elder daughter, 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,
Civil Appeal No. 14276 of 2024 Page 6 of 8
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.
11. Accordingly, we direct that the respondent shall be
entitled to visitation rights with her daughter on two
days each month. The parties shall 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
parties are directed 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.
12. In light of the foregoing discussion, the appeal is
allowed. The marriage between the appellant and the
respondent stands dissolved under Article 142 of the
Constitution of India on the ground of irretrievable
Civil Appeal No. 14276 of 2024 Page 7 of 8
breakdown of marriage. The respondent shall be
entitled to visitation in the terms set forth above.
13. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
……………………………………J.
(VIKRAM NATH)
……………………………………J.
(SANJAY KAROL)
……………………………………J.
(SANEEP MEHTA)
NEW DELHI
APRIL 22, 2025
Civil Appeal No. 14276 of 2024 Page 8 of 8