In a landmark case of the Supreme Court of India dated 15 July 2025, a decree of divorce has been passed against Pradeep Bhardwaj (appellant-husband) and Priya (respondent-wife) on the basis of irretrievable breakdown of marriage. This ruling that reverses the earlier rulings of both the Family Court and the High Court of Delhi puts forward the exercise of powers by the Supreme Court under Article 142 of the Constitution to annul marriages that may not be possible to rekindle. The case, which was registered as Civil Appeal No. 18430 of 2019, was related to a protracted matrimony conflict whose origin can be traced to the time soon after the wedding of the couple in 2008.
Material Facts of the Marital Disputed Case
Pradeep Bhardwaj and Priya got married on May 7, 2008, in Delhi and their marriage was solemnized as per the Hindu rites and rituals. They gave birth to a boy child on March 25, 2009. There was a lot of disagreement in the marriage that came very quickly after the wedding and since October 2009 the couple has been living apart.
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.
Earlier the appellant-husband had submitted a petition of divorce-under Section 13(1)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955, alleging divorce on the basis of cruelty. His claims entailed that the respondent beat and tortured his sick mother with the purpose of taking over her property, physically battered him, had an extra-marital affair, and battered him with the assistance of her brother.
The wife who is the respondent to this dispute denied these allegations, saying that the appellant did not support her and their underage child monetarily. She also claimed that the appellant left her and their child in October 2009, as well as in the process of residing together, she remained in the state of neglect and abuse by the appellant and his family.
Bringing Your Case Through the Lower Courts
The family court having heard the divorce petition disregarded the request by the appellant on November 23, 2017. The husband was in the opinion of court uninspiring and unworthy to be accepted as the court hold that the allegations that he was treated cruelly and wanted property to be transferred to him could not be proven and as such his case should not be accepted.
The appellant had sought maintenance by the respondent which had been declined during the interim period when the divorce petition was awaiting disposal. But the respondent moved the application under Sections 24 and 26 of the HMA, 1955 and it was ordered that the appellant pay Rs. 4,500 per month towards the maintenance of his child and wife and the amount of Rs 5,000 towards litigation costs.
The appellant got aggrieved due to the order by the Family Court and appealed to the High Court of Delhi. The appellant brought the case of irretrievable breakdown of marriage as the main basis of divorce in front of the High Court due to the long duration of separation and mutual hatred. In the order dated February 26, 2019, the High Court affirmed the judgment of the Family Court, citing the fact that the appellant did not demonstrate cruelties. The High Court also added that the delivery of divorce owing to irretrievable break-up and a conjunction of aversion that could not vary was going to be equivalent to rewarding the husband in escaping his wife and minor child. In consequence, the High Court rejected the appeal and ordered a cost of Rs. 10,000 on the respondent.
The Reasoning and Commentary of Supreme Court
The appellant then went to tie his case in Supreme Court as well stressing on the fact that the couple had lived separately more than 16 years and had completely stopped living together a fact that made the marriage dead. He stated that the nature of further relationships was useless and brought about lengthy psychological torture whereby the two entities were out of time younger to solve their disputes, or to overcome their separation. This was also noted by the appellant that there was a non-prosecution of mediation and acquittal in criminal cases that was filed by the respondent under Sections 498A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code as evidence that the charges on cruelties and dowry harassment were not true.
The respondent on his part requested the Supreme Court to leave the findings by the lower courts that had concurred since the appellant had failed to establish cruelty. Another serious concern which she promoted was that the appellant rejected that their child was born because of him, and he does not even worry about their happiness and social position. Moreover, she wanted to have an increase in the maintenance amount that was earlier granted under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
The two major factors which the Supreme Court took into account include the acquittal of the appellant-husband in cruelty case (filed by the respondent), and the indisputable fact that the couple had been separated ever since (almost) sixteen years since October 2009. The Court echoed its established position and indicated that marriage was based on dignity, mutual respect and companionship. Once the bases are lost beyond any means, there is no need to push a couple to stay together on a legal basis, to cause more suffering to the mind. The Court has relied on its own earlier verdicts in Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan and Amutha v. A.R. Subramaniam
who acknowledged that Article 142 gave power to dissolve marriages on the ground of irretrievable breakdown.
Judgment and Implications
A total disconnection and long-term alienations were found and the Supreme Court decided that the marital relationship had irreversibly failed and could not be repaired. The two parties and their minor child were considered to be in the best interest and should be left to live as independent individuals and without the long fights of litigation. Specifically, the Court added that the ongoing marriage would only add more fuel to the fire since the appellant had been acquitted in the cruelty case and hence it would be absurd to make him stay in a matrimonial union with a spouse who had entered a false case against him and his family members.
Using her intrinsic powers which are embedded under Section 142 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court gave a divorce decree to Pradeep Bhardwaj and Priya.
Moreover, based on the occupation of the appellant as a clerk in one of the privately owned companies and the role of the respondent as a homemaker who takes sole charge of their 16-year-old son, it was ruled by the Court as righteous and fair to increase the monthly amount of the maintenance. The appellant was ordered to render a composite maintenance of Rs 15,000 to the respondent and his 2nd son (which was a minor) on monthly basis.
This decision endorses the trend of the Supreme Court regarding matrimonial litigation, which values the best interest and dignity of parties than the continued survival of the law by a “dozing marriage.” The case in itself acts as an important precedent to cases that deal with sustained separation and irreconcilable breakdown in giving individuals an avenue to get out of incompatible marriage ties. Sources
