Supreme Court Dissolves Marriage Under Article 142 for Irretrievable Breakdown Despite Spouse’s Objection

Case Name: Neha Lal v. Abhishek Kumar

Citation: 2026 INSC 73

Date of Judgment/Order: 20 January 2026

Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Manmohan

Held: The Supreme Court held that in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, it may dissolve a marriage on the ground of irretrievable breakdown even if one spouse opposes the decree, provided the Court is satisfied that the marriage has completely failed, the parties have been separated for a long duration, reconciliation efforts have failed, and continuation of the formal legal relationship would serve no purpose; in such cases, complete justice warrants termination of the marital tie notwithstanding the absence of statutory recognition of irretrievable breakdown under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

Summary: The petitioner-wife initially filed a transfer petition seeking transfer of perjury proceedings from Delhi to Lucknow. During the pendency of the matter, she moved an application under Article 142 of the Constitution seeking dissolution of marriage on the ground of irretrievable breakdown. The marriage had been solemnised on 28.01.2012, and the parties had cohabited for only 65 days before separating in April 2012. Over the next decade, the parties engaged in extensive litigation, filing more than forty civil and criminal proceedings against each other across multiple courts in Delhi and Uttar Pradesh, including maintenance proceedings, domestic violence cases, criminal complaints, revisions, and perjury applications. The Court directed verification of pending and disposed cases from the Registrars General of the Delhi High Court and the Allahabad High Court, which revealed discrepancies in the lists furnished by both parties. Relying upon the Constitution Bench judgment in Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan and other precedents, the Court examined factors such as long separation, multiplicity of litigation, failure of mediation, absence of children, and the cumulative bitterness between the parties. It observed that the marriage had irretrievably broken down, reconciliation efforts including mediation before the Supreme Court had failed, and the continuation of matrimonial ties would only perpetuate hostility and further clog the judicial system.

Decision: The Supreme Court allowed the application under Article 142 and dissolved the marriage between the parties, holding it to be a fit case of irretrievable breakdown; it directed that all pending matrimonial disputes between the parties stand disposed of except specified perjury applications under Section 340 CrPC and Section 379 read with 215 BNSS, which were to proceed on merits, imposed costs of ₹10,000 each on both parties payable to the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association, and disposed of the transfer petition and all pending applications accordingly.