Introduction
The concept of irretrievable breakdown of marriage refers to a situation where the matrimonial relationship has completely failed, the parties have lived apart for a substantial period, and there is no reasonable possibility of reconciliation or resumption of matrimonial life. Although this concept has received considerable judicial recognition in India, it is not expressly incorporated as an independent ground for divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA).
The Supreme Court, however, has repeatedly recognised that forcing parties to continue a marriage which has become completely unworkable may cause further hardship. In appropriate cases, the Court has therefore exercised its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 142(1) of the Constitution to dissolve marriages on the ground of irretrievable breakdown.
Also Read – Rights of Coparcener under Hindu Law: Mitakshara Coparcenary Explained
Statutory Position under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
Section 13 of the HMA specifies the statutory grounds on which a marriage may be dissolved by a decree of divorce. These include cruelty, desertion, conversion, certain mental disorders, renunciation of the world and other grounds prescribed by the statute. Irretrievable breakdown of marriage is not expressly included among these grounds.
Section 13B separately provides for divorce by mutual consent. Under Section 13B(1), the parties must have lived separately for at least one year, must have been unable to live together, and must mutually agree that the marriage should be dissolved. Section 13B(2) ordinarily prescribes a period between the first and second motions before the decree can be passed.
Section 23(2) further places a duty upon the court, wherever possible and consistent with the circumstances of the case, to make efforts towards reconciliation before granting relief under the Act. This demonstrates the legislative policy of preserving marriage wherever genuine reconciliation remains possible.
Also Read – Maintenance Claimed by Wife under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956
Article 142 of the Constitution
Article 142(1) empowers the Supreme Court to pass such decree or make such order as is necessary for doing “complete justice” in any cause or matter pending before it. The power is extraordinary and is intended to ensure that the Court can mould relief in exceptional circumstances where ordinary legal remedies may not adequately resolve the dispute.
Importantly, Article 142 does not mean that the Supreme Court has generally amended the HMA or created a new statutory ground of divorce. Rather, the Court has used its constitutional power in particular cases before it to provide complete justice.
Development through Judicial Decisions
Naveen Kohli v. Neelu Kohli, (2006) 4 SCC 558
This case is one of the most significant early decisions concerning irretrievable breakdown. The parties had been involved in prolonged matrimonial and other litigation and their relationship had effectively collapsed.
The Supreme Court observed that where a marriage has become unworkable and has ceased to be effective, and there has been a long period of continuous separation, it may be reasonable to conclude that the matrimonial bond is beyond repair. The Court noted that continuing such a legal relationship may cause misery to the parties and may not serve the interests of society.
The Court recommended that irretrievable breakdown should be incorporated as a ground for divorce by legislation. However, the Court itself could not treat it as an ordinary statutory ground under Section 13.
Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh, (2007) 4 SCC 511
In Samar Ghosh, the Supreme Court discussed the circumstances that may amount to mental cruelty and recognised that prolonged separation may demonstrate that a matrimonial relationship has become practically impossible to sustain.
The Court observed that where there has been a long period of continuous separation, it may reasonably be concluded that the matrimonial bond has become beyond repair. This case strengthened the judicial understanding that the actual state of a matrimonial relationship, and not merely its formal legal existence, can be relevant in matrimonial adjudication.
R. Srinivas Kumar v. R. Shametha, (2019)
The Supreme Court considered the plea for dissolution on the ground of irretrievable breakdown and referred to a line of earlier decisions including Naveen Kohli, Samar Ghosh, K. Srinivas Rao and Sukhendu Das. The case demonstrated the continuing judicial practice of considering the complete failure of a marriage while exercising the Supreme Court’s extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction.
Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan, (2023) 14 SCC 231
This is the leading Constitution Bench judgment on the subject. A five-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court authoritatively considered whether Article 142 could be used to dissolve a marriage on the ground of irretrievable breakdown.
The Court held that the Supreme Court can exercise its power under Article 142(1) to dissolve a marriage on the ground of irretrievable breakdown, even though such a ground is not expressly provided under the HMA. The purpose is to do complete justice where the marriage has completely failed, there is no possibility of the parties living together, and continuation of the formal legal relationship would itself be unjustified.
The Court clarified that this is an extraordinary and discretionary power, and not an automatic right available to every spouse who claims that the marriage has broken down.
While determining whether a marriage has irretrievably broken down, the Court may consider factors such as:
– the duration of the marriage and the period during which the parties actually lived together;
– when the parties last cohabited;
– the nature of allegations made against each other;
– the history of litigation between them;
– the cumulative impact of the disputes on the relationship;
– attempts at mediation or reconciliation;
– the length of separation; and
– the economic and social circumstances of the parties, including the interests of children and their financial dependence.
The Court also held that Article 142 can, in appropriate cases, be used to dispense with the procedural waiting period under Section 13B(2). However, the Court must carefully balance the rights and interests of both spouses and children.
Important Limitation
The judgment in Shilpa Sailesh does not mean that irretrievable breakdown has become a statutory ground under Section 13 of the HMA. The distinction is crucial.
A Family Court or High Court ordinarily cannot grant divorce merely because it believes that the marriage has irretrievably broken down unless another statutory ground is established. The exceptional power to dissolve the marriage solely on this basis under Article 142 belongs to the Supreme Court.
This position was reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in 2026, which expressly observed that irretrievable breakdown is still not a valid statutory ground of divorce under the HMA, while recognising the carefully developed jurisprudence permitting the Supreme Court to exercise Article 142 in appropriate cases.
Conclusion
The law relating to irretrievable breakdown of marriage represents an important balance between legislative policy and constitutional justice. The HMA does not expressly recognise irretrievable breakdown as a ground for divorce. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court has, through cases such as Naveen Kohli, Samar Ghosh, R. Srinivas Kumar and ultimately the Constitution Bench decision in Shilpa Sailesh, developed a limited constitutional remedy.
The present legal position is therefore clear: irretrievable breakdown is not an independent statutory ground under the HMA, but the Supreme Court may dissolve a completely failed marriage under Article 142 when it is satisfied that the marriage has irretrievably collapsed, reconciliation is impossible, and continuation of the legal relationship would be unjust.
This approach prevents the law from compelling parties to remain legally bound to a relationship which has ceased to exist in substance, while ensuring that Article 142 remains an exceptional constitutional power rather than an ordinary substitute for the statutory grounds of divorce.
Join our WhatsApp Groups ( Click Here) and Telegram Channel ( Click Here) and get instant notifications
Editorial Note: This article has been reviewed by the LegalRath Editorial Team to ensure legal accuracy, editorial quality, and clarity before publication.