Irretrievable Breakdown Of Marriage: Right Of Spouses Or Court's Prerogative?

“A marriage that is dead for all purposes cannot be revived by a judicial verdict.” – Naveen Kohli v. Neelu Kohli (2006) 4 SCC 558, ¶62.

This observation from the Supreme Court continues to shape one of the most debated issues in Indian family law: should irretrievable breakdown of marriage (IBM) be recognised as a statutory ground for divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, or should it remain a remedy available only through the Court's extraordinary power under Article 142 of the Constitution?

The Indian Position So Far

When the Hindu Marriage Act was enacted in 1955, divorce was cautiously introduced through limited fault-based grounds such as adultery, cruelty, and desertion. Mutual consent was added later, but IBM has never been formally recognised by Parliament.

Courts have often stepped in to fill this legislative vacuum:

• Saroj Rani v. Sudarshan Kumar Chadha (1984) 4 SCC 90 acknowledged the futility of sustaining dead marriages.
• Naveen Kohli v. Neelu Kohli (2006) 4 SCC 558 urged Parliament to introduce IBM as a statutory ground.
• Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh (2007) 4 SCC 511 laid down markers for recognising mental cruelty and the reality of de facto breakdown.
• K. Srinivas Rao v. D.A. Deepa (2013) 5 SCC 226 granted divorce for prolonged separation and irreconcilable hostility.
• Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan (2023) 7 SCC 1 clarified that IBM is not a statutory ground but can be invoked only under Article 142.
• Most recently, in (2025), Ekta Bhatnagar Vs Ashutosh Bhatnagar (TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) 405/2025 Diary No. 3237/2025). The court stated that if a marriage is broken beyond repair, there is no point in dragging it further.

Rights of Spouses vs. Judicial Discretion

The debate rests on two competing visions. One emphasises judicial discretion—ensuring safeguards against misuse and enabling courts to balance equities. The other frames IBM as an individual right, rooted in Article 21's promise of dignity and liberty.

Critics argue that reliance on judicial discretion creates uncertainty, prolongs litigation, and deepens emotional trauma. Recognising IBM as a statutory right, they contend, would align Indian law with international practice and uphold the principle that no person should be forced to remain in a marriage that has irretrievably collapsed.

Global Experience

Other jurisdictions have long accepted IBM—or its equivalents—as a valid ground:

• United Kingdom – Since the Divorce Reform Act, 1969, IBM has been the sole ground. The 2020 Act further simplified the process by allowing a no-fault divorce on the basis of a simple statement.
• Australia – The Family Law Act, 1975 requires proof only of 12 months' separation.
• South Africa – The Divorce Act, 1979 recognises IBM where there is no reasonable prospect of reconciliation.
• United States – Most states accept “irreconcilable differences” or “irretrievable breakdown” as sufficient grounds (e.g., California Family Code §2310).

Why Reform is Urgent

The case for recognising IBM in India rests on four pillars:

1. Certainty – At present, outcomes hinge on whether the Supreme Court chooses to invoke Article 142.
2. Access to Justice – Relief is largely restricted to those who can reach the apex court.
3. Global Alignment – Most modern jurisdictions already accept IBM as a statutory ground.
4. Human Dignity – Forcing couples to stay legally bound in dead marriages erodes the constitutional guarantee of dignity under Article 21.

Both the Law Commission's 71st Report (1978) and 217th Report (2009) recognised these concerns decades ago and recommended statutory recognition of IBM, while also emphasising safeguards for children and financial security.

The Road Ahead

A balanced legislative framework could:

• Recognise IBM as an independent ground for divorce.
• Require a short separation period or counselling attempt.
• Safeguard children's welfare and ensure fair financial settlement.
• Retain judicial discretion to prevent abuse.

The Supreme Court has repeatedly intervened to grant relief to parties trapped in dead marriages, but reliance on Article 142 makes IBM a matter of judicial grace rather than legal right. Legislative recognition would bring clarity, fairness, and dignity to matrimonial law in India.

Until Parliament acts, the paradox remains: marriages that are socially and emotionally extinguished continue to survive legally—waiting either for extraordinary judicial intervention or for long-overdue legislative courage.

Author is an Assistant Professor of Law, Galgotias University. Views Are Personal. 

References

Saroj Rani v. Sudarshan Kumar Chadha, (1984) 4 SCC 90.

Naveen Kohli v. Neelu Kohli, (2006) 4 SCC 558. 

Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh, (2007) 4 SCC 511. 

K. Srinivas Rao v. D.A. Deepa, (2013) 5 SCC 226. 

Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan, (2023) 7 SCC 1.

'Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage' A Ground To Dissolve Marriage Invoking Article 142 Powers : Supreme Court

Law Commission of India, 71st Report (1978). 

Law Commission of India, 217th Report (2009).

Matrimonial Causes Act, 1973 (UK).

Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Act, 2020 (UK).

Family Law Act, 1975 (Australia).

Divorce Act, 1979 (South Africa).

California Family Code §2310.