PRADEEP BHARDWAJversusPRIYA

                  [2025] 7 S.C.R. 534 : 2025 INSC 852

                             Pradeep Bhardwaj
                                    v.
                                   Priya
                       (Civil Appeal No. 9502 of 2025)
                                  15 July 2025
               [Vikram Nath* and Sandeep Mehta, JJ.]


                            Issue for Consideration
       Issue arose as regards the correctness of the judgment passed
       by the High Court dismissing the matrimonial appeal filed by the
       appellant-husband refusing to grant divorce to the parties.

                                   Headnotes†
       Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – s.13(1)(a) – Divorce – Irretrievable
       breakdown of marriage – Petition for dissolution of marriage
       on the ground of cruelty by the appellant-husband – Dismissed
       by the family court – Thereagainst, an appeal by the appellant
       on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage and
       animosity between the parties – Dismissed by the High
       Court – Challenge to:
       Held: Fit case to exercise power u/Art.142 and grant the relief of
       divorce to the parties on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of
       marriage – 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 in this marital discord, which has persisted for more than
       the last fifteen years – Continuance of marriage would only fuel
       animosity and litigation between the parties, which runs contrary
       to the ethos of matrimonial harmony envisioned by the law – Also,
       the appellant and his family members’ have been acquitted in the
       cruelty case filed by the respondent-wife – It cannot be expected by
       appellant to now continue in a marital bond with the respondent –
       Thus, in the interest of both the parties and the minor child that they
       be allowed to lead their lives independently and peacefully, free from
       legal battles – Decree of divorce granted and monthly maintenance
       enhanced to Rs.15,000/- pm in favour of respondent and the minor
       son – Constitution of India – Art.142. [Paras 23-27]
* Author
[2025] 7 S.C.R.                                                           535

                        Pradeep Bhardwaj v. Priya


                             Case Law Cited
     Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan [2023] 5 SCR 165 : (2023)
     4 SCC 692; Amutha v. A.R. Subramaniam [2024] 12 SCR 755 :
     2023 SCC OnLine SC 611 – referred to.

                                List of Acts
     Hindu Marriage Act, 1955; Constitution of India.

                             List of Keywords
     Dissolution of marriage; Cruelty; Irretrievable breakdown of
     marriage; Long period of separation; Feelings of animosity; Mental
     agony; False case against husband and in-laws; Prolonged and
     futile legal battles; Monthly maintenance; Continuance of marriage;
     Matrimonial harmony.

                            Case Arising From
     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 9502
     of 2025
     From the Judgment and Order dated 26.02.2019 of the High Court
     of Delhi at New Delhi in MATAP No. 54 of 2018

                         Appearances for Parties
     Advs. for the Appellant:
     Aditya Aggarwal, Ms. Pooja, Shri Bhagwan, Ms. Kumari Rashmi
     Rani, Ms. Rashi Jaiswal, Vipin Kumar Jai.
     Adv. for the Respondent:
     Ms. Nidhi.

                Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

                                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
536                                                           [2025] 7 S.C.R.

                           Supreme Court Reports


       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 respondent-wife was solemnised
       on 07.05.2008 according to the Hindu rites and ceremonies at 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 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


1    HMA, 1955
[2025] 7 S.C.R.                                                        537

                       Pradeep Bhardwaj v. Priya


     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 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 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.
538                                                        [2025] 7 S.C.R.

                         Supreme Court Reports


15. Further, it has been contended that there exists no possibility of
    reconciliation and the mediation also did not yield any positive result.
    Additionally, 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 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



2   IPC
3   (2023) 4 SCC 692
4   Cr.P.C.
[2025] 7 S.C.R.                                                            539

                             Pradeep Bhardwaj v. Priya


     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 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 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


5   2023 SCC OnLine SC 611
540                                                        [2025] 7 S.C.R.

                               Supreme Court Reports


       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 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.

       Result of the case: Appeal allowed.



       †
           Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain