In a long-pending divorce matter, where the wife refused to give consent for mutual divorce, the Supreme Court dissolved the marriage by using its extraordinary powers under Article 142. The Court clearly said – if a marriage is broken beyond repair, there’s no point in dragging it further.
This judgment was a big step towards real justice in dead marriages. Advocate Divya Tripathi, appearing for the husband from Tripaksha Litigation, strongly argued that the husband’s right to live peacefully cannot be blocked just because the wife refuses to let go.
Brief Facts of the Case
- Marriage took place in 1994.
- The couple started living separately from 2009.
- Husband made multiple efforts to end the marriage legally.
- Wife kept refusing mutual divorce and opposed every move.
- Husband finally approached the Supreme Court after years of legal struggle.
Legal Provisions Involved
- Article 142 of Constitution of India – Supreme Court’s special power to do complete justice.
- Section 13B, Hindu Marriage Act – Mutual Consent Divorce.
- Section 13(1)(i-a), Hindu Marriage Act – Divorce on grounds of cruelty.
Arguments of Both Sides
Husband (Petitioner):
- Said the marriage is completely broken, and there is no possibility of reunion.
- Highlighted the 15+ years of separation.
- Wife was misusing her refusal to mutual consent just to harass.
Wife (Respondent):
- Opposed the divorce strongly.
- Said she still considered the marriage intact.
- Rejected any form of mutual consent repeatedly.
What the Supreme Court Said:
- Marriage was over in every practical sense.
- Forcing the husband to remain in this marriage was unfair and inhuman.
- Wife’s refusal was unreasonable and without any positive intention.
- Court cannot allow law to become a weapon of revenge.
- Staying in such a marriage is mental cruelty for both sides.
So, using Article 142, the Court dissolved the marriage.
Conclusion of the Judgment:
The Supreme Court legally ended the marriage without mutual consent, based on the clear fact that it was irretrievably broken. It sent a strong message – when one party misuses legal provisions to cause mental torture, the Court will step in.
Comments from the author of this website
I’ve seen this happen too many times—men trapped in broken marriages, completely separated from their spouses for years, yet unable to legally move on. This judgment by the Supreme Court offers relief, yes—but only to those who can survive the long journey through lower courts and reach the highest bench in the country. And that’s the problem.
What about the lakhs of men who are stuck in the same situation—separated for a decade or more, emotionally exhausted, financially drained, and yet the law tells them, “Sorry, unless she agrees, you’re still married”?
Let’s be honest—mutual consent divorce is supposed to be simple and respectful. But in practice, it becomes a trap. If one side uses refusal as a punishment tool, it turns into a long, painful legal battle. Men are often forced to beg for peace, to compromise just to get their life back. Some even agree to outrageous settlements, just so the suffering ends. Is that justice?
What hurts the most is that there’s no real recognition of irretrievable breakdown of marriage in most family courts. Even after 15 years of separation, courts keep asking men to “try reconciliation” or say “the door for settlement is still open.” At what point do we accept that the marriage is already dead? Why should a person be legally bound to a relationship that no longer exists in reality?
This judgment was only possible because of the extraordinary powers of Article 142. But ordinary people don’t have the luxury of Supreme Court access. They suffer in silence, stuck in dead relationships, battling false cases, harassment, social stigma—and the system just watches.
It’s time we ask: When will the law allow people to walk away from a failed marriage with dignity, without having to fight for decades? When will the system stop giving one spouse the power to emotionally hold the other hostage?
We don’t want special treatment. We want fairness. And we want freedom from the idea that only one side deserves sympathy.
Read Complete Judgement Here
Leave A Comment