Dissolution of Marriage Under Article 142 Granted Due to Irretrievable Breakdown despite Lack of Mutual Consent

The parties married on April 19, 2017.

Following marital discord, the respondent-wife initiated multiple proceedings, including maintenance claims under Section 90(i) of the Army Act and Section 125 CrPC, as well as a complaint under the DV Act.

On February 21, 2019, the parties entered a settlement agreement to file for divorce by mutual consent for a sum of Rs. 31 Lakhs (revised to Rs. 32 Lakhs), of which Rs. 20 Lakhs was paid to the wife.

The wife subsequently refused to sign the second motion, leading the Family Court to dismiss the divorce petition.

The High Court of Allahabad upheld this dismissal on October 3, 2024, directing that the Rs. 20 Lakhs already paid be adjusted against maintenance arrears.

During the Supreme Court proceedings, the wife returned the Rs. 20 Lakhs to the husband and expressed a desire to contest the divorce on grounds of adultery.

1. Whether the Supreme Court should exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution to dissolve the marriage on the ground of its irretrievable breakdown despite the lack of mutual consent at the second motion stage.

2. Whether the Court can fix a final comprehensive permanent alimony to settle all pending and future claims between the parties.

The Court exercised its plenary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, which allows the Supreme Court to pass such decrees or orders as are necessary for doing "complete justice" in any cause or matter.

Where a marriage has irretrievably broken down with no possibility of reconciliation, and parties have lived separately for a significant duration (over eight years in this instance), the Court may dissolve the union to prevent the prolongation of a "marriage that exists only on paper".

The Court observed that despite the respondent-wife’s opposition to a mutual decree and her intent to pursue a contested divorce for adultery, the marriage was functionally dead.

The Bench noted eight years of separation, deep-seated acrimony, and a multiplicity of civil and criminal litigations as evidence of irretrievable breakdown.

The Court determined that compelling the parties to remain legally wedded served no legitimate purpose.

To ensure "complete justice," the Court evaluated the parties' earning capacities, standards of living, and the wife's future financial security, deciding to enhance the previously agreed-upon alimony of Rs. 32 Lakhs to Rs. 50 Lakhs to serve as a final settlement of all past and future claims under Section 125 CrPC and the Army Act.

The husband was directed to pay a total of Rs. 50,00,000 as permanent alimony in two instalments: Rs. 25 Lakhs by June 15, 2026, and the remaining Rs. 25 Lakhs by September 15, 2026; consequently, all pending proceedings, including the DV Act complaint, maintenance petitions under CrPC, and contempt cases, were ordered closed and disposed of.

The Registry was directed to draw up the decree of divorce upon proof of the final payment.