{"id":1582,"date":"2025-11-20T16:52:47","date_gmt":"2025-11-20T11:22:47","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.shoneekapoor.com\/legal-news\/?p=1582"},"modified":"2025-11-20T16:22:10","modified_gmt":"2025-11-20T10:52:10","slug":"living-separately-doesnt-mean-marriage-is-dead","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.shoneekapoor.com\/legal-news\/living-separately-doesnt-mean-marriage-is-dead\/","title":{"rendered":"Landmark Ruling | Living Separately For Long Doesn\u2019t Mean Marriage Is Dead: Supreme Court Slams Mechanical Divorces & Sets Aside HC Judgment"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

The Supreme Court has ruled that courts cannot blindly assume a marriage is \u201cirretrievably broken\u201d just because the couple living separately. The Court set aside a Uttarakhand High Court divorce decree and sent the case back for a proper examination of evidence.<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n

NEW DELHI<\/em>: In an important judgment, the Supreme Court<\/strong> has said that courts should not mechanically declare that a marriage<\/strong> has \u201cirretrievably broken<\/strong>\u201d only because the husband and wife are living separately<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The top court set aside <\/strong>a judgment<\/strong> of the Uttarakhand High Court<\/strong> which had granted divorce to a husband<\/strong> on the ground of cruelty without properly checking the evidence and without deciding who was actually responsible for the separation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Supreme Court has now sent the case back to the High Court<\/strong> for a fresh hearing so that responsibility for the marital breakdown can be decided correctly.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Bench of Justice Surya Kant<\/a> <\/strong>and Justice Joymalya Bagchi<\/strong> clearly said that before any court comes to the conclusion that the marriage has collapsed forever, it must first find out who started the separation<\/strong>, whether the separation was forced or voluntary<\/strong>, and whether there is clear evidence of cruelty, desertion, or refusal to cohabit.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Court stressed that such findings cannot be made casually, especially when the future of a minor child is involved<\/strong>. According to the Bench, the High Court did not carry out this careful examination and skipped essential questions that must be answered before granting divorce.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Supreme Court also explained the law on desertion, saying that courts must look closely at the conduct, intention, and circumstances of both parties. The Court said that unless there is solid proof that one spouse willfully<\/strong> left the other or refused to live together<\/strong>, the court cannot assume that the marriage has reached a stage where it cannot be saved.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Court warned that wrong or premature findings of irretrievable breakdown can have \u201cdevastating effects<\/em><\/strong>\u201d on children and can weaken the court\u2019s responsibility to find the truth through evidence.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The case relates to a couple who married in 2009<\/strong> and had a son in 2010<\/strong>. Shortly after the marriage, disputes began. The husband first filed a divorce case in 2010 alleging cruelty<\/strong>, but he withdrew that case. In 2013, he filed another divorce petition, this time claiming that his wife had deserted him. The wife opposed the case and said she was actually forced out of the house<\/strong> and had no choice but to live separately. The child has been living with the mother from the beginning.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The trial court dismissed the husband\u2019s second divorce case in 2018 because it found that desertion was not proved. However, in 2019, the Uttarakhand High Court reversed that decision and granted divorce<\/strong> based only on the husband\u2019s oral allegations of cruelty.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The High Court did not examine the wife\u2019s claim that she was thrown out, did not decide who was responsible for the separation, and also did not check whether the earlier withdrawn divorce case could legally allow the second one. The Supreme Court found these gaps very serious and said that the High Court\u2019s approach was completely against the established principles of matrimonial law<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Supreme Court observed that when spouses live apart for long periods, many courts simply assume that the marriage is over. But the Bench strongly clarified that findings of cruelty or desertion<\/strong> cannot be based on just one party\u2019s statements. The Court said the evidence, background, and social circumstances must be examined in depth before reaching such conclusions. Since the High Court did not do this, the Supreme Court cancelled its judgment.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Supreme Court has directed the High Court to reconsider all issues properly – desertion, cruelty, responsibility for the separation, and whether the second divorce petition was even maintainable. Both husband and wife have been asked to appear before the High Court on 24 November 2025<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"Living
<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Explanatory Table Of All Laws & Sections Mentioned<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Law \/ Provision<\/strong><\/td>Full Name<\/strong><\/td>Purpose in Matrimonial Disputes<\/strong><\/td>How It Applies in This Case<\/strong><\/td><\/tr><\/thead>
Section 13, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955<\/a><\/strong><\/td>Divorce Provision under HMA<\/td>Provides grounds on which a marriage can be dissolved.<\/td>Husband filed divorce petition under this section alleging cruelty. High Court allowed divorce under this section.<\/td><\/tr>
Section 13(1)(i-b), Hindu Marriage Act, 1955<\/a><\/strong><\/td>Ground of Desertion<\/strong><\/td>Divorce can be granted when a spouse willfully deserts the other for a continuous period of at least 2 years.<\/td>Husband\u2019s second divorce petition (2013) was specifically filed under this ground. Supreme Court said desertion was not properly examined<\/strong>.<\/td><\/tr>
Ground of Cruelty<\/strong> (Section 13)<\/td>Part of Section 13 HMA<\/td>Mental or physical cruelty is a valid ground for divorce.<\/td>High Court accepted husband\u2019s oral allegations of mental cruelty without evaluating evidence or wife\u2019s counterclaim.<\/td><\/tr>
Doctrine of Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage<\/strong> (Judge-made law)<\/td>Not a statutory ground<\/em> but used in some SC judgments<\/td>Courts sometimes grant divorce when marriage has completely collapsed and cannot be fixed.<\/td>Supreme Court here warns courts not<\/strong> to use this doctrine blindly just because the couple lives separately.<\/td><\/tr>
Family Court \/ High Court Duty to Examine Evidence<\/strong><\/td>Procedural Judicial Duty<\/td>Courts must identify who caused the separation, whether desertion was willful, and whether cruelty existed.<\/td>Supreme Court held High Court failed to check responsibility<\/strong>, failed to consider child welfare<\/strong>, and ignored evidence<\/strong>.<\/td><\/tr>
Withdrawal of Earlier Divorce Petition<\/strong><\/td>Procedural bar concept<\/td>A withdrawn case cannot always be used as a fresh cause of action unless grounds differ.<\/td>Supreme Court said High Court should have examined whether the first withdrawn petition (cruelty)<\/strong> barred the second petition.<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Case Title<\/strong>: Dr. Anita vs. Indresh Gopal Kohli<\/strong> (Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 24920 of 2019)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Bench<\/strong>: Justice Surya Kant<\/strong>, Justice Joymalya Bagchi<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Counsels<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

For Petitioner (Wife \u2013 Dr. Anita)<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n