Full Judgment Text
NON-REPORTABLE
2025 INSC 631
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3489 OF 2025
[ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NO. 18812 OF 2022]
KUMARI REKHA …. APPELLANT
VERSUS
SHAMBHU SARAN PASWAN ... RESPONDENT
J U D G M E N T
DIPANKAR DATTA, J.
th
1. This appeal registers a challenge to the judgment and decree dated 4
1
June, 2020 of the High Court of Judicature at Patna in Miscellaneous
Appeal No. 501 of 2013. Under challenge before the High Court were (i)
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
JATINDER KAUR
Date: 2025.05.06
17:01:15 IST
Reason:
th
judgment and decree dated 4 June, 2013 of the Principal Judge, Family
1
High Court
1
2
Court, Munger, Bihar, dismissing a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu
Marriage Act, 1955 presented by the appellant-wife and (ii) the judgment
th
and decree dated 11 June, 2013 allowing a petition under section 9 of
the said Act of the respondent-husband. The High Court dismissed the
appeal and, thereby, upheld the impugned judgment and decree of the
Family Court.
2. The marriage between the appellant-wife and the respondent-husband
th
was solemnized on 24 April, 1999. They were blessed with a daughter
th
on 7 June, 2001. It is not in dispute that the parties have been living
separately for quite some time. According to the appellant-wife, they
have been living separately since 2008 while the respondent-husband
claims that the separation is since 2012. Be that as it may, admittedly,
they have been living separately for at least a little in excess of 12
(twelve) years.
3. Having perused the materials on record and considering the factual
situation of separation in excess of 12 (twelve) years, we had put it
across to learned senior counsel for the parties as to whether any reunion
by way of reconciliation is possible.
4. Ms. Nivedita Nirvikar, learned senior counsel for the appellant-wife ruled
out any scope for such reconciliation and insisted for a decree of divorce
on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage. According to her,
because of the acrimony between the parties, there is nothing left of the
marriage.
2
Title Suit (Matrimonial) No. 1 of 2009
2
5. Per contra , Mr. Ashok Kumar Choudhary, learned senior counsel for the
respondent-husband submitted, on instructions, that the respondent-
husband was more than willing to have resumption of marital relationship
particularly having regard to the future of the child of the parties. He
contended that the petitioner-wife started showing her true colours once
she obtained public employment. The respondent-husband had huge
contributions for what the appellant-wife is today (she happens to be a
Child Development Project Officer). Not only was she encouraged by him
to prepare for securing public employment, the entire expenses for her
to live a dignified, fulfilling and meaningful life were borne by him.
Conveniently, she repudiated the contribution of the respondent-husband
and disowned him after such employment. According to Mr. Choudhary,
in light of the socio-economic conditions of the rural area from where the
respondent-husband hails, it would be extremely difficult, if not
impossible, to find a suitable groom for his child. Having regard to the
stigma that is attached with a divorce, no respectable family would agree
to give in marriage their son with the child of a divorcee. Even otherwise,
it has not been demonstrated how the Family Court or the High Court
erred in not granting relief to the appellant-wife. Placing reliance on
several decisions of this Court, Mr. Choudhary, thus, assiduously urged
that this appeal be dismissed.
6. We heard submission of Ms. Nirvikar that the child of the parties has
since grown up and she is an adult, pursuing her medical course in
Puducherry. According to Ms. Nirvikar, the respondent-husband never
3
cared for his child and all expenses for her up-bringing as well as
education have been borne by the appellant-wife. That apart, she was an
aspirant for public employment even before her marriage. With great
deal of personal effort and without anyone’s assistance she could secure
public employment. Submissions to the contrary are entirely wrong.
7. We heard rival contentions of the parties with patience and considering
that the respondent-husband was overly concerned about his child’s
future, particularly about her married life, decided to interact with her on
the virtual platform.
8. In course of interaction, we could ascertain that the child of the parties
nd
is in the 2 year of her MBBS course in a medical college in Puducherry.
She is approaching marriageable age. We found her sufficiently mature
to make her own decisions. Although the parties were not visible on the
screen, their respective senior counsel did join the proceedings. Even if
the parties had not joined proceedings virtually, we have no doubt that
they have been told of the interaction that we had with their child.
9. We need not burden this judgment with what the child of the parties
answered while responding to the other questions posed to her by both
of us. Suffice to record, we believe that it is a fit case for us to invoke
powers conferred on us by Article 142 of the Constitution of India and to
dissolve the marriage between the parties on the ground of irretrievable
breakdown of marriage. We are persuaded to do so, having considered
the prolonged period of separation and the multiple failed attempts at
4
reconciliation, which clearly indicate that there is no possibility of
reunion, as well as their age (both are quinquagenarian).
10. Mr. Choudhary for the respondent-husband once again urged us to not
grant divorce as it would not be in the best interest of the child. We are
not impressed by this submission, especially in light of the fact that the
respondent-husband and his daughter have had no contact during the
entire period of separation. To us, this appears to be a mere attempt to
prolong the litigation and stall the inevitable.
11. Keeping in mind the totality of the facts and circumstances, we are of the
clear view that it would be in the best interest of both the parties, and
their daughter too, to put a quietus to this protracted litigation. It is our
hope that this quietus allows all members of the family to move on in
life.
12. Even though the respondent-husband has vehemently opposed the
prayer for dissolution of marriage contending that none of the available
grounds on which a Hindu marriage could be dissolved is present, the
same is not a bar for us to exercise our powers under Article 142 of the
Constitution; more particularly when we are satisfied that it is a case of
irretrievable breakdown of marriage. In this regard, one may refer
profitably to the decision of the Constitution Bench of this Court in Shilpa
3
Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan .
13. Accordingly, we dissolve the marriage between the parties by a decree
of divorce. Decree be drawn up accordingly.
3
2023 SCC OnLine SC 544
5
14. Since the appellant-wife has no claim for alimony, no order is made in
that behalf.
15. The appeal, accordingly, stands allowed.
…………………………….J.
[DIPANKAR DATTA]
…………………………....J.
[MANMOHAN]
NEW DELHI;
May 06, 2025.
6
2025 INSC 631
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3489 OF 2025
[ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NO. 18812 OF 2022]
KUMARI REKHA …. APPELLANT
VERSUS
SHAMBHU SARAN PASWAN ... RESPONDENT
J U D G M E N T
DIPANKAR DATTA, J.
th
1. This appeal registers a challenge to the judgment and decree dated 4
1
June, 2020 of the High Court of Judicature at Patna in Miscellaneous
Appeal No. 501 of 2013. Under challenge before the High Court were (i)
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
JATINDER KAUR
Date: 2025.05.06
17:01:15 IST
Reason:
th
judgment and decree dated 4 June, 2013 of the Principal Judge, Family
1
High Court
1
2
Court, Munger, Bihar, dismissing a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu
Marriage Act, 1955 presented by the appellant-wife and (ii) the judgment
th
and decree dated 11 June, 2013 allowing a petition under section 9 of
the said Act of the respondent-husband. The High Court dismissed the
appeal and, thereby, upheld the impugned judgment and decree of the
Family Court.
2. The marriage between the appellant-wife and the respondent-husband
th
was solemnized on 24 April, 1999. They were blessed with a daughter
th
on 7 June, 2001. It is not in dispute that the parties have been living
separately for quite some time. According to the appellant-wife, they
have been living separately since 2008 while the respondent-husband
claims that the separation is since 2012. Be that as it may, admittedly,
they have been living separately for at least a little in excess of 12
(twelve) years.
3. Having perused the materials on record and considering the factual
situation of separation in excess of 12 (twelve) years, we had put it
across to learned senior counsel for the parties as to whether any reunion
by way of reconciliation is possible.
4. Ms. Nivedita Nirvikar, learned senior counsel for the appellant-wife ruled
out any scope for such reconciliation and insisted for a decree of divorce
on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage. According to her,
because of the acrimony between the parties, there is nothing left of the
marriage.
2
Title Suit (Matrimonial) No. 1 of 2009
2
5. Per contra , Mr. Ashok Kumar Choudhary, learned senior counsel for the
respondent-husband submitted, on instructions, that the respondent-
husband was more than willing to have resumption of marital relationship
particularly having regard to the future of the child of the parties. He
contended that the petitioner-wife started showing her true colours once
she obtained public employment. The respondent-husband had huge
contributions for what the appellant-wife is today (she happens to be a
Child Development Project Officer). Not only was she encouraged by him
to prepare for securing public employment, the entire expenses for her
to live a dignified, fulfilling and meaningful life were borne by him.
Conveniently, she repudiated the contribution of the respondent-husband
and disowned him after such employment. According to Mr. Choudhary,
in light of the socio-economic conditions of the rural area from where the
respondent-husband hails, it would be extremely difficult, if not
impossible, to find a suitable groom for his child. Having regard to the
stigma that is attached with a divorce, no respectable family would agree
to give in marriage their son with the child of a divorcee. Even otherwise,
it has not been demonstrated how the Family Court or the High Court
erred in not granting relief to the appellant-wife. Placing reliance on
several decisions of this Court, Mr. Choudhary, thus, assiduously urged
that this appeal be dismissed.
6. We heard submission of Ms. Nirvikar that the child of the parties has
since grown up and she is an adult, pursuing her medical course in
Puducherry. According to Ms. Nirvikar, the respondent-husband never
3
cared for his child and all expenses for her up-bringing as well as
education have been borne by the appellant-wife. That apart, she was an
aspirant for public employment even before her marriage. With great
deal of personal effort and without anyone’s assistance she could secure
public employment. Submissions to the contrary are entirely wrong.
7. We heard rival contentions of the parties with patience and considering
that the respondent-husband was overly concerned about his child’s
future, particularly about her married life, decided to interact with her on
the virtual platform.
8. In course of interaction, we could ascertain that the child of the parties
nd
is in the 2 year of her MBBS course in a medical college in Puducherry.
She is approaching marriageable age. We found her sufficiently mature
to make her own decisions. Although the parties were not visible on the
screen, their respective senior counsel did join the proceedings. Even if
the parties had not joined proceedings virtually, we have no doubt that
they have been told of the interaction that we had with their child.
9. We need not burden this judgment with what the child of the parties
answered while responding to the other questions posed to her by both
of us. Suffice to record, we believe that it is a fit case for us to invoke
powers conferred on us by Article 142 of the Constitution of India and to
dissolve the marriage between the parties on the ground of irretrievable
breakdown of marriage. We are persuaded to do so, having considered
the prolonged period of separation and the multiple failed attempts at
4
reconciliation, which clearly indicate that there is no possibility of
reunion, as well as their age (both are quinquagenarian).
10. Mr. Choudhary for the respondent-husband once again urged us to not
grant divorce as it would not be in the best interest of the child. We are
not impressed by this submission, especially in light of the fact that the
respondent-husband and his daughter have had no contact during the
entire period of separation. To us, this appears to be a mere attempt to
prolong the litigation and stall the inevitable.
11. Keeping in mind the totality of the facts and circumstances, we are of the
clear view that it would be in the best interest of both the parties, and
their daughter too, to put a quietus to this protracted litigation. It is our
hope that this quietus allows all members of the family to move on in
life.
12. Even though the respondent-husband has vehemently opposed the
prayer for dissolution of marriage contending that none of the available
grounds on which a Hindu marriage could be dissolved is present, the
same is not a bar for us to exercise our powers under Article 142 of the
Constitution; more particularly when we are satisfied that it is a case of
irretrievable breakdown of marriage. In this regard, one may refer
profitably to the decision of the Constitution Bench of this Court in Shilpa
3
Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan .
13. Accordingly, we dissolve the marriage between the parties by a decree
of divorce. Decree be drawn up accordingly.
3
2023 SCC OnLine SC 544
5
14. Since the appellant-wife has no claim for alimony, no order is made in
that behalf.
15. The appeal, accordingly, stands allowed.
…………………………….J.
[DIPANKAR DATTA]
…………………………....J.
[MANMOHAN]
NEW DELHI;
May 06, 2025.
6