Indian law on matrimonial disputes is by and large of a statutory
Nature. It may, however, at times not be able to relate to the intricate emotional facts of broken relationships.
In Ramanuj Kumar v. In Priyanka (2025), on the basis of Article 142 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court decided to end a marriage on the grounds that she and her husband had irretrievably lost all marital bond, and there was no use in maintaining their pro forma union where neither of them could enjoy it. The case strengthens the judicial rule that the irretrievable breakdown of the marriage is a constitutional ground for
Divorce, even where there is no provision in the act that can be used to qualify for the divorce.
Factual background
On 24 November 2012 Ramanuj Kumar married Priyanka. The two are blessed with two children who have a daughter born in 2013 and a son born in 2014. The husband also transferred the petition on the 7th March 2014 under the section 13(1) (ia), 13 (1) (iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 which the wife wants the divorce on the basis of uncruelty and wants the not to be broken further on the unsoundness of mind. The respondent-wife was pregnant with their second child at the given period.
In late entries, the wife filed a criminal complaint on the charge of cruelty and dowry harassment under the provisions of Section 498A of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The son was easily born with cerebral palsy and the son was not taken out of his mother’s care until he untimely died a few years later. Since early childhood, the daughter has stayed with her father and the mother never took any action on custody and visitation until her remedy was heard by the Supreme Court.
For More Updates & Regular Notes Join Our Whats App Group (https://chat.whatsapp.com/DkucckgAEJbCtXwXr2yIt0) and Telegram Group ( https://t.me/legalmaestroeducators ) contact@legalmaestros.com.
The trial court rejected the divorce petition advanced by the husband. The High Court justified this dismissal by pointing to the fact that the couple did not cease cohabitation until March 2014, and thus the previous allegations of cruelty were not persuasive enough to prove.
Since the lower courts were not competent enough to handle the case, the case went to the Supreme Court.
The appellant appealed against concurrent judgments of the Family Court and the High Court. By 2025 when the court issue hit the Supreme Court, the couple had spent more than 11 years since separation. The Supreme Court had to use the issue of irretrievable breakdown of marriage as a basis on which to grant divorce because although under the Hindu spouse the grounds of irretrievable breakdown of marriage were not clearly defined and only now began to be considered as law by judicial opinions.
The Court faced three key questions:
- Whether continued separation for over a decade justified granting a divorce under Article 142.
- Whether emotional and practical estrangement amounts to an irretrievable breakdown of the marriage?
- Whether the mother, who had not sought custody or visitation for years, should be granted access to her surviving child.
Article 142 and the Power to Do Complete Justice
Under Article 142, the Supreme Court noticed that the Court could issue a decree or order to do complete justice. Although the Hindu Marriage Act does not put forward that irretrievable breakdown is a reason to get a divorce, the Court in its earlier decisions in the case of R. Srinivas Kumar v. R. Shametha and the case of Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan, acknowledged its application in rare and unusual cases.
The Court observed that compelling parties to stay in a marriage where there is no trust, companionship and respect is one that is not constructive and instead continues to cause emotional pain. In the present case, both parties had moved on, and the marriage practically ended years ago.
Welfare of the Child and Visitation Rights
Though the mother had never pursued custody or visitation during the long separation, she explained that caring for the special needs of her second child and her professional obligations as a government servant had consumed her time and energy. The Court found this explanation reasonable and concluded that the mother’s bond with her daughter still deserved protection.
Recognizing the emotional necessity for both mother and daughter to rebuild a relationship, the Court granted the mother visitation rights. It ordered that she would meet the daughter twice a month at the home of the father on dates that are agreed mutually with the cooperation of both parties. It was clarified by the Court that this arrangement would not play an impact on future legal issues arising related to custody, in case either party resorts to them.
Legal Stipulation Overview
In this case, the following provisions of the law were applied:
Clause 13(1)(ia), Hindu Marriage Act: Handling cruelty as grounds for divorce.
S. 13(1) (iii), Hindu Marriage Act: In respect of mental disorders as a matrimonial cause.
Article 142 of the Constitution: Enables the Supreme Court to use extraordinary powers in order to provide full justice.
Section 498A of IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act: They are mentioned in civil oppositions by the wife.
The Court in the end did not make a ruling on cruelty or mental disorder because the facts were not clear cut. Rather, it applied Article 142 to tackle the bigger picture of irreconcilable marital separation.
It turns out to have in moving jurisprudence of irretrievable breakdown.
Though not written, irretrievable breakdown has come to be a very strong principle through the court’s innovation. The Supreme Court has constantly maintained that in some cases of marriage that are beyond reformation, separation is the best option that can only cause social and psychological harm to both.
The decision of Ramanuj Kumar v Priyanka further pursues this aspect of progressive reasoning and shows that justice cannot be positioned behind a strict statutory framework when it comes to personal freedom, dignity, and emotional states.
Impact, Significance
This judgment is significant for multiple reasons. It:
- Fortified Article 142 as an interspace between the law and justice.
- Protecting the emotional health of divorced couples and their children.
- Recognizes the practical reality of long-term separation in granting divorce.
- Strengthens the child’s right to parental love from both parents.
- Emphasizes that divorce, in such rare cases, may be an instrument of healing rather than harm.
By prioritizing the human experience behind legal disputes, the Supreme Court ensured that the law remained a living instrument of social justice.
In Ramanuj Kumar v. Priyanka, the Supreme Court illuminated the role of constitutional conscience in matrimonial disputes. The statute did not comment on the irretrievable breakdown, but with the help of Article 142, the Court even introduced life to justice. It combines finality with fairness, compassion with clarity and law with love. The case verdict is a lesson to the courts that they should at times overlook black letter law in an attempt to bring about restoration of peace and dignity to people who have become ensnared in failed relationships.
