Introduction: The Supreme Court's Power to Grant Justice Beyond Fault
In a landmark judgment delivered
on December 15, 2025, the Supreme Court of India, in the case of Nayan
Bhowmick v. Aparna Chakraborty, wielded its extraordinary constitutional
power to dissolve a marriage that had effectively ceased to exist for over two
decades. This decision is a profound exposition of modern matrimonial
jurisprudence, balancing the sanctity of marriage with the stark reality of its
irretrievable breakdown. It underscores a significant shift from a rigid
"fault-based" divorce system to one that acknowledges human suffering
and the futility of preserving a legal tie that has lost all meaning.
For lawyers, this judgment is a
critical precedent on the application of Article 142(1) of the Constitution to
grant divorce on the ground of irretrievable breakdown, even when traditional
grounds like desertion or cruelty are not conclusively proven. For laypersons,
it is a poignant reminder that the law is not blind to prolonged human misery
and that a marriage, at its core, is a union of hearts and minds, not just a
legal contract.
Parawise Analysis of the
Supreme Court's Judgment
Paragraph 1-2: The Legal
Battle Commences
The appeal before the Supreme
Court challenged a 2011 judgment of the Gauhati High Court. The High Court had overturned
a divorce decree granted by the Family Court in Shillong. The core dispute was
simple yet agonizing: the husband (Appellant) sought divorce on grounds of
desertion, while the wife (Respondent) contended she was driven out due to
mistreatment. Their marriage, solemnized in August 2000, began to unravel
barely a year later.
Paragraph 3-4: The Wife's
Narrative of Compulsion
The wife’s case painted a picture
of pressure and conflict. She alleged that despite the husband being aware of
her financial responsibilities towards her ailing mother and family, he and his
family demanded she quit her job as a Development Officer with LIC. Unable to
bear this ill-treatment, which threatened her family's survival, she left the
matrimonial home in 2001. The husband filed for divorce in 2003 under Section
13(1)(i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (desertion), but the suit was
dismissed as premature since the mandatory two-year separation period had not
elapsed.
Paragraph 5-8: The Litigation
Odyssey
After withdrawing his first
appeal, the husband filed a fresh suit in 2007. The Trial Court, in 2010,
granted the divorce, accepting his plea of desertion. The wife appealed. The
High Court, in a detailed analysis, reversed this decree. It held that the
husband failed to prove the wife had the "animus deserendi"—the
permanent intention to forsake the marriage. The Court scrutinized the
husband’s alleged reconciliation attempts, particularly a letter dated November
12, 2002. It found the letter to be more of an ultimatum than a sincere olive
branch, noting it admitted to family issues that forced her to leave. The High
Court concluded there was no desertion by the wife; instead, she had reasonable
cause to leave and remained willing to resume cohabitation.
Paragraph 9-12: The Husband's
Plea to the Apex Court
Before the Supreme Court, the
husband’s counsel argued that the parties had lived apart since 2001—a
separation spanning 24 years. He emphasized the complete absence of
reconciliation, noting they worked in the same LIC branch yet did not interact.
He contended the marriage had irretrievably broken down, a fact more
significant than the disputed allegations of desertion. He maintained the Trial
Court correctly appreciated the ingredients of desertion: factum of separation
and intention to end cohabitation.
Paragraph 13-19: The Wife's
Stand: No Desertion, Only Compulsion
The wife’s counsel vehemently
denied any desertion. He argued she was a victim of cruelty, forced to choose
between her matrimonial home and her destitute parental family. The letters
from the husband in 2002 were dismissed as an "eye-wash," not genuine
attempts at reconciliation. He pointed to the husband’s haste in filing for
divorce in 2003 as evidence of his intent to end the marriage. Relying on
precedents like Savitri Pandey v. Prem Chandra Pandey, he argued that a
marriage cannot be dissolved merely because one party declares it broken down.
He asserted the wife continued to affirm the marriage and was ready to cohabit.
Paragraph 20-23: The Court's
Focus: The Unassailable Reality of 24-Year Separation
The Supreme Court shifted the
lens from the "whodunit" of fault to the undeniable factual matrix.
The parties had been litigating for 22 years and living separately for 24.
There was no child from the marriage. A court-ordered mediation in 2012 had
failed. The Court invoked the principle that such a long period of separation,
with no hope of reconciliation, is itself a source of immense mental cruelty to
both parties. It referenced Rakesh Raman v. Kavita, where a 25-year separation
was held to signify an irretrievably broken marriage, constituting cruelty
under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Act.
Paragraph 24-27: Clashing
Ideologies as Cruelty
The Court made a profound
observation relevant to modern marriages. It noted that the spouses held
"strongly held views" on matrimonial life—he insisting on a
traditional role, she on her career and family duties. Their prolonged refusal
to accommodate each other's perspectives had created an unworkable
relationship. This stubborn incompatibility, sustained over decades, itself amounted
to mental cruelty. The Court clarified that it was not its role to judge which
spouse's view was "correct," but to recognize that their mutual
inflexibility had destroyed the marital bond. It distinguished the wife’s cited
precedent (Prabhamani) as inapplicable, stating this was not a case of a party
misusing the "irretrievable breakdown" bogey.
Paragraph 28-32: The
Constitutional Power to Do "Complete Justice" Under Article 142
This is the jurisprudential heart
of the judgment. The Court held that its power under Article 142(1) of the
Constitution to do "complete justice" is not constrained by the
fault-based doctrine governing ordinary divorce petitions. It extensively
quoted the Constitution Bench in Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan, which
criticized the fault theory for forcing courts to dwell on "concrete
instances of adverse human behaviour, thereby maligning the institution of
marriage."
a. The Court emphasized that apportioning
blame is not necessary in rare and exceptional cases where the marriage is
visibly dead.
b. It cited Shilpa Sailesh:
"No spouse can be compelled to resume life with a consort, and as such,
nothing is gained by keeping the parties tied forever to a marriage which has,
in fact, ceased to exist."
c. It referenced recent cases
like Pradeep Bhardwaj v. Priya and Kumari Rekha v. Shambhu Saran Paswan, where
it exercised Article 142 powers to dissolve marriages upon finding an
irretrievable breakdown, even absent specific grounds under the Hindu Marriage
Act.
Paragraph 33-34: The End of
Sanctity and the Need for Closure
The Court acknowledged the
principle of preserving marital sanctity. However, it ruled that in this case, no
sanctity remained after 24 years of estrangement. Rapprochement was impossible.
With no children affected, divorce would not devastate any third party. The
Court warned that allowing such litigation to perpetuate only sustains a
"marriage on paper," harming the parties and wasting judicial
resources. It served no "useful purpose" to deny relief.
Paragraph 35: The Final Decree
Exercising its plenary power
under Article 142 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court dissolved the marriage
between Nayan Bhowmick and Aparna Chakraborty on the ground of irretrievable
breakdown. It upheld the original divorce decree of the Additional Deputy
Commissioner, Shillong (from 2010), and set aside the High Court's order that
had reversed it. The 25-year legal saga was brought to an end.
Conclusion: A Judgment for Humanity and
Pragmatism
Nayan Bhowmick v. Aparna
Chakraborty is more than a divorce decree. It is a statement that the law
must serve justice, not just procedure. For the legal community, it solidifies Article
142 as a vital tool to address the gaps in statutory divorce law, providing an
escape hatch from marriages that are legal prisons. It reaffirms that prolonged
separation can metamorphose into legal cruelty.
For society, it sends a
compassionate message: a marriage requires more than a certificate to survive;
it needs cohabitation, companionship, and mutual respect. When these vanish for
a period as long as a generation, the law must have the courage to acknowledge
the death of the relationship and grant closure. This judgment moves Indian
family law closer to a balance between preserving the institution of marriage
and alleviating the suffering trapped within its broken frames.
Case Cited: Nayan Bhowmick vs.
Aparna Chakraborty, Civil Appeal No. 5167 of 2012, Supreme Court of India,
Judgement delivered on December 15, 2025.
0 Comments