Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — Ss. 13(1)(i-a), 13(1)(i-b), 23(1) — Divorce — Desertion — Cruelty — Irretrievable breakdown of marriage — Article 142, Constitution of India — Marriage solemnised in 2000 — Parties living separately since 2001 — Matrimonial litigation pending for more than two decades — Trial Court granting divorce on ground of desertion — High Court reversing decree holding absence of animus deserendi and holding husband attempting to take advantage of his own wrong — Supreme Court holding that long period of separation without any hope of reconciliation amounts to cruelty to both parties — Strongly held and irreconcilable views of spouses and refusal to accommodate each other constituting cruelty — Power under Article 142 not fettered by doctrine of fault — Marriage found to be irretrievably broken down — Decree of divorce granted by exercising power to do “complete justice” — Judgment of High Court set aside and decree of divorce restored.

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — Ss. 13(1)(i-a), 13(1)(i-b), 23(1) — Divorce — Desertion — Cruelty — Irretrievable breakdown of marriage — Article 142, Constitution of India — Marriage solemnised in 2000 — Parties living separately since 2001 — Matrimonial litigation pending for more than two decades — Trial Court granting divorce on ground of desertion — High Court reversing decree holding absence of animus deserendi and holding husband attempting to take advantage of his own wrong — Supreme Court holding that long period of separation without any hope of reconciliation amounts to cruelty to both parties — Strongly held and irreconcilable views of spouses and refusal to accommodate each other constituting cruelty — Power under Article 142 not fettered by doctrine of fault — Marriage found to be irretrievably broken down — Decree of divorce granted by exercising power to do “complete justice” — Judgment of High Court set aside and decree of divorce restored.

---

B. ANALYSIS OF FACTS

1. The marriage between the appellant-husband and respondent-wife was solemnised on 04.08.2000 according to Hindu rites at Shillong.

2. Both parties were working as Development Officers in Life Insurance Corporation of India Ltd. and were acquainted prior to marriage.

3. The respondent-wife left the matrimonial home in 2001, alleging ill-treatment and pressure to give up her employment despite her family responsibilities.

4. The appellant-husband initially filed a divorce petition in 2003, which was dismissed as premature. A fresh petition was filed in 2007 seeking divorce on the grounds of cruelty and desertion.

5. The Additional Deputy Commissioner (Judicial), Shillong, by judgment dated 09.03.2010, dissolved the marriage holding desertion proved under Section 13(1)(i-b).

6. The Gauhati High Court (Shillong Bench) reversed the decree on 13.04.2011, holding that:

   • There was no intention on the part of the wife to permanently abandon the matrimonial relationship.

   • The husband had failed to prove sincere attempts at reconciliation.

   • The husband was attempting to take advantage of his own wrong under Section 23(1) of the Act.

7. The parties admittedly continued to live separately for 24 years, with no children, and mediation efforts ordered by the Supreme Court in 2012 failed.

---

C. ANALYSIS OF LAW

1. Long Separation as Cruelty

The Court reaffirmed that long period of separation without any possibility of reconciliation amounts to cruelty to both parties, relying upon:

• Rakesh Raman v. Kavita

• Naveen Kohli v. Neelu Kohli

• Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh

The Court held that when the matrimonial bond has ceased to be effective and exists only on paper, continuation of such a marriage itself constitutes cruelty.

---

2. Strongly Held Views and Non-Accommodation

The Court observed that where spouses:

• Hold fundamentally different approaches to matrimonial life, and

• Refuse to accommodate each other for decades,

such conduct itself amounts to cruelty, and it is not for courts or society to adjudicate whose approach is correct.

---

3. Irretrievable Breakdown and Article 142

The Court held that:

• The power under Article 142(1) to do “complete justice” is not fettered by the doctrine of fault or blame.

• Even where statutory grounds under Section 13 may be disputed, the Supreme Court can dissolve a marriage that is dead and beyond salvage.

The Court relied extensively on the Constitution Bench judgment in Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan, clarifying that:

• Fault theory cannot obstruct constitutional power.

• Compelling parties to remain tied to a marriage that has ceased to exist serves no public or private interest.

---

4. Inapplicability of Savitri Pandey

The Court clarified that Savitri Pandey v. Prem Chandra Pandey stands read down in light of Shilpa Sailesh insofar as the exercise of Article 142 powers is concerned.

---

D. DECISION / OPERATIVE PART

1. The Supreme Court held that:

   • The marriage between the parties has irretrievably broken down.

   • There is no sanctity left in the marriage, and

   • Rapprochement is not in the realm of possibility.

2. In exercise of powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, the Court:

   • Dissolved the marriage between the parties.

   • Set aside the judgment dated 13.04.2011 passed by the Gauhati High Court.

   • Restored and upheld the decree of divorce granted by the Trial Court.

3. The Civil Appeal was allowed.