2025 INSC 852

REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). OF 2025

(@ SLP (CIVIL) NO. 18430 OF 2019)

PRADEEP BHARDWAJ …APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS
PRIYA …RESPONDENT(S)

JUDGMENT
VIKRAM NATH, J.

1. Leave granted.
2. The instant appeal has been preferred by the
appellant-husband against the final judgment and
order dated 26.02.2019 in MAT.APP.(F.C.) No.
54/2018 passed by the High Court of Delhi,
wherein the High Court dismissed the matrimonial
appeal preferred by the appellant herein and
refused to grant divorce to the parties.
3. The brief facts leading to the instant appeal are that
the marriage between the appellant-husband and
Signature Not Verified

Digitally signed by
NEETU KHAJURIA
respondent-wife was solemnised on 07.05.2008
Date: 2025.07.15

according to the Hindu rites and ceremonies at

18:30:06 IST
Reason:

SLP (CIVIL) NO. 18430 OF 2019 Page 1 of 10

 Delhi. A male child was born out of the wedlock on
25.03.2009, who has remained in the care and
custody of the respondent. The conflict ensued
between the parties shortly after the wedding took
place and the parties have been living separately
since October 2009 itself.
4. The appellant preferred a divorce petition under
Section 13(1)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 19551
vide HMA No. 377 of 2010 before the Family Court,
Tis Hazari, Delhi seeking dissolution of marriage on
the ground of cruelty. The grounds seeking divorce
were that the respondent used to assault and
torture the appellant’s ailing mother with an
intention to grab her property. There were further
allegations laid by the appellant upon the
respondent regarding physically abusing the
appellant, having an extra-marital relationship and
conducting assault upon the appellant with the
help of her brother.
5. The divorce petition was contested by the
respondent who denied all the allegations and
claimed that the appellant fails to financially
provide for her and the minor child. It was also

1
HMA, 1955

SLP (CIVIL) NO. 18430 OF 2019 Page 2 of 10

 claimed by the respondent that the appellant has
abandoned her and the minor child since October
2009, and that even in the period that they spent
together, she faced constant neglect and abuse at
the hands of the appellant and his family members.
6. The Family Court, vide order dated 23.11.2017,
dismissed the appellant’s divorce petition while
holding that the case set up by him was
uninspiring and unworthy of acceptance. It was
held that the allegation of cruelty against the
respondent as well as her wanting transfer of the
ownership of the property remain unsubstantiated.
Therefore, the appellant’s petition seeking divorce
on the ground of cruelty was rejected by the Family
Court.
7. During the pendency of the divorce petition, the
appellant had preferred an application under
Section 24 of HMA, 1955 seeking maintenance
from the respondent and the same was dismissed
vide order dated 12.03.2012. However, on an
application preferred by the respondent under
Section 24 and 26 of HMA, 1955, the appellant had
been directed to pay an amount of Rs. 4,500/- per
month to the respondent and their child towards

SLP (CIVIL) NO. 18430 OF 2019 Page 3 of 10

 their maintenance, apart from Rs. 5,000/- towards
litigation expenses. The Family Court, vide final
judgment, had held the appellant liable to pay the
said maintenance to the respondent till the date of
judgment in the above-mentioned terms.
8. Aggrieved by the dismissal of his divorce petition,
the appellant preferred an appeal against the order
dated 23.11.2017 before the High Court of Delhi.
9. The appellant strongly urged before the High Court
that the limited ground on which he was seeking
divorce was the irretrievable breakdown of
marriage given the long period of separation
between the parties and the constant feelings of
animosity that the two parties harbour for each
other. The respondent had resisted the grant of
divorce.
10. The High Court, vide the impugned order dated
26.02.2019, affirmed the decision of the Family
Court and held that the appellant has failed to
prove cruelty and that granting a decree of divorce
on the ground that cruelty stands blended with the
irretrievable breakdown of marriage would be
equivalent to rewarding the husband for leaving his
wife and minor son. Accordingly, the High Court

SLP (CIVIL) NO. 18430 OF 2019 Page 4 of 10

 dismissed the appeal and imposed the cost of Rs.
10,000/- upon the respondent.
11. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the appellant
is before us.
12. We have heard the learned counsel for the
parties and perused the material on record.
13. It has been submitted by the appellant that the
parties separated just one year after their marriage
and have remained apart ever since. The parties
have been living separately for more than 16 years.
There has been a complete cessation of
cohabitation and consortium, rendering the
marriage defunct for all practical and legal
purposes.
14. It has also been argued that continuing this
relationship serves no purpose and would amount
to a travesty of justice. That both the appellant and
the respondent have already exhausted their
youth, either in attempts to reconcile or in
enduring the breakdown of their marital
relationship.
15. Further, it has been contended that there exists
no possibility of reconciliation and the mediation
also did not yield any positive result. Additionally,

SLP (CIVIL) NO. 18430 OF 2019 Page 5 of 10

 in the criminal proceedings initiated by the
respondent under Sections 498A/406/34 of the
Indian Penal Code, 18602 in FIR No. 83 of 2011, the
appellant and his family members have been
acquitted by the Trial Court vide judgment dated
05.07.2019, which demonstrates that the
allegations of cruelty and dowry harassment
against the appellant were false.
16. It has been submitted that in view of the above,
the present case squarely falls within the scope of
the principle of “irretrievable breakdown of
marriage” as a valid ground for granting divorce, as
has been laid down by this Court in multiple
judgments including Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun
Sreenivasan,3 where this Court has recognized its
power under Article 142 of the Constitution to
dissolve marriages where the matrimonial
relationship has irretrievably broken down.
17. On the contrary, the respondent, while resisting
the grant of divorce, has submitted that there are
concurrent findings in favour of the respondent by
both the Courts below and they should not be
interfered with. It has been submitted that the

2
IPC
3
(2023) 4 SCC 692

SLP (CIVIL) NO. 18430 OF 2019 Page 6 of 10

 appellant has not been able to prove the allegations
of cruelty against the respondent.
18. Additionally, it has been submitted that the
appellant, in a most inconsiderate and inhumane
manner, has denied the paternity of the child born
out of the wedlock, and this makes it apparent that
the appellant is not concerned about the well-being
and social status of the child and the wife. It was
contended that the appellant cannot be permitted
to take the benefit of his own wrong in ignoring his
responsibilities as a husband and a father.
19. Lastly, it was submitted that the maintenance
amount of Rs. 7,500/- which was awarded under
the provision of Section 125 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 19734 must be enhanced.
20. Firstly, it must be noted that this Court had
referred the parties to the Supreme Court
Mediation Centre to explore the possibility of an
amicable settlement. However, the attempts at
mediation failed and the parties are back to the
courtroom.
21. There are two main considerations which have
weighed heavily with this Court while considering

4
Cr.P.C.

SLP (CIVIL) NO. 18430 OF 2019 Page 7 of 10

 the rival contentions. Firstly, that the appellant-
husband has been acquitted in the case of cruelty
preferred by the respondent against him and his
family members. Secondly, it is an admitted fact
that the parties have been living separately since
October 2009, i.e. almost for the past sixteen years.
22. It has been consistently held by this Court that
the institution of marriage is rooted in dignity,
mutual respect and shared companionship, and
when these foundational aspects are irreparably
lost, forcing a couple to remain legally bound serves
no beneficial purpose. It has been emphasized by
this Court in Amutha v. A.R. Subramaniam5 that
the welfare and dignity of both the spouses must
be prioritized, and that compelling a dead marriage
to continue only perpetuates mental agony and
societal burden.
23. In the present case, it is apparent that due to
complete detachment and the prolonged
estrangement, there has been an irretrievable
breakdown of the marital bond, which cannot be
mended by any means. Moreover, both the parties
have spent the prime years of their youth entangled

5
(2023) SCC OnLine SC 611

SLP (CIVIL) NO. 18430 OF 2019 Page 8 of 10

 in this marital discord, which has persisted for
more than the last fifteen years.
24. It is as clear as a day that in the case at hand,
the continuance of marriage shall only fuel
animosity and litigation between the parties, which
runs contrary to the ethos of matrimonial harmony
envisioned by the law. This would ring true even
more in the light of appellant’s and his family
members’ acquittal in the cruelty case preferred by
the respondent. It cannot be expected by the
appellant to now continue in a marital bond with
the respondent, a partner who had filed and fought
a false case against her husband and in-laws.
25. Therefore, we are of the belief that it is in the
best interest of both the parties and their minor
child that they be allowed to lead their lives
independently and peacefully, free from the shadow
of prolonged and futile legal battles. This Court
finds it a fit case to exercise its power under Article
142 of the Constitution and grant the relief of
divorce to the parties on the ground of irretrievable
breakdown of marriage.
26. Considering that the appellant is working as a
clerk in a private firm and the respondent is a

SLP (CIVIL) NO. 18430 OF 2019 Page 9 of 10

 homemaker who is independently taking care of
their minor son aged 16 years, we find it just and
equitable to enhance the monthly maintenance to
Rs. 15,000/- per month in favour of the respondent
and their minor son.
27. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the
impugned order dated 26.02.2019 is set aside. The
marriage between the parties stands dissolved and
a decree of divorce is granted in their favour by this
Court in exercise of its power under Article 142 of
the Constitution of India. The appellant shall pay
composite monthly maintenance of Rs. 15,000/- to
the respondent and their child.
28. No order as to costs.
29. Interlocutory Application(s), if any, shall stand
disposed of.
30. Registry to draw the decree accordingly.

……………………………………J.
(VIKRAM NATH)

……………………………………J.
(SANDEEP MEHTA)
NEW DELHI
JULY 15, 2025

SLP (CIVIL) NO. 18430 OF 2019 Page 10 of 10