Supreme Court Can Dissolve Marriage for Irretrievable Breakdown Under Article 142, Even if One Spouse Objects: Constitution Bench

A two-judge Bench in 2010 doubted earlier rulings that the Court cannot waive the six-month period under Section 13-B(2), and in this transfer petition a two-judge Bench dissolved the parties' marriage by consent on 06.05.2015 but kept the case pending to settle the law (para 4). On 06.04.2015 the Court had sought the Attorney General's assistance on the scope of Article 142, and he suggested also examining irretrievable breakdown as a ground (paras 2-3). The questions were referred to a Constitution Bench in 2016, which in 2022 added whether Article 142 can be used for irretrievable breakdown when one party does not consent (paras 5-7).

Article 142(1) lets the Court depart from procedural and substantive law to do complete justice in a cause or matter, but only within fundamental general and specific public policy, and it must consider the substantive provisions as enacted (paras 13, 42). Section 13-B does not fetter this power once its substantive conditions are met, though when to use it depends on the facts and the factors in Amardeep Singh and Amit Kumar (paras 20-21). Because matrimonial disputes spawn many cases, the Court may also quash connected criminal and other proceedings (paras 22, 42). Divorce for irretrievable breakdown is a discretion to be used only where the marriage is shown to be unworkable, emotionally dead and beyond salvation (para 33). Relevant factors include how long the parties cohabited and have lived apart, with six years or more being relevant, the allegations, litigation and mediation attempts, children, and alimony (para 33). The power is not fettered by the fault theory of Section 13(1)(i-a), and contrary rulings such as Manish Goel are read down (para 40).