Supreme Court of India
RAMANUJ KUMARversusPRIYANKA
- Citation
- 2025 INSC 543
- Decided
- 22 April 2025
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
- Bench
- VIKRAM NATH
Holding
The marriage is deemed irretrievably broken down and is dissolved under Article 142 of the Constitution, with the mother granted visitation rights to the child.
Summary
The appellant, Ramanuj Kumar, filed a petition for divorce under Sections 13(1)(ia) and (iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, alleging irretrievable breakdown of his marriage to Priyanka. The parties had been living separately for over eleven years, with the appellant caring for their elder daughter and the respondent caring for a second child with cerebral palsy who later died. Both parties made mutual allegations of mental and physical cruelty, but the lower courts dismissed the divorce petition, holding that cohabitation continued until 2014. The Supreme Court examined whether the marriage had irretrievably broken down and whether it could be dissolved under Article 142 of the Constitution to achieve complete justice. Finding that the marriage was beyond repair, the Court dissolved it under Article 142 and granted the respondent visitation rights to the daughter, while leaving custody matters open for future adjudication.
Issues considered
- Whether the marriage between the parties has irretrievably broken down warranting dissolution under Article 142 of the Constitution of India.
- Whether the Supreme Court can exercise its jurisdiction under Article 142 to dissolve a marriage on the ground of irretrievable breakdown despite the absence of a specific provision in the Hindu Marriage Act.
- Whether visitation rights should be granted to the mother in the circumstances of prolonged separation and lack of prior custody proceedings.
Legislation cited
- Constitution of Indias. Article 142
- Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961s. 3, s. 4
- Hindu Marriage Act, 1955s. 13(1)(ia), s. 13(1)(iii)
- Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 498A
Headnote
Issue for Consideration Whether on facts, the marriage between the parties has irretrievably broken down and ought to be dissolved on that ground in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India. Headnotes† Constitution of India – Art.142 – Hindu Whether on facts there is irretrievable breakdown of marriage and it ought to be dissolved on that ground in exercise of jurisdiction u/Article 142: Held: Yes – Parties have lived separately for over a decade and there is a complete absence of marital ties – Multiple attempts at
Subjects
Irretrievable breakdown of marriageExercise of jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of IndiaMarriage dissolved on the ground of irretrievable breakdownProlonged separationDecree of divorceMental and physical crueltyVerbal abuseCustody or visitation rightsWelfare of the child
Judgment
[2025] 4 S.C.R. 1502 : 2025 INSC 543
Ramanuj Kumar
v.
Priyanka
(Civil Appeal No. 14276 of 2024)
22 April 2025
[Vikram Nath,* Sanjay Karol and Sandeep Mehta, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Whether on facts, the marriage between the parties has irretrievably
broken down and ought to be dissolved on that ground in exercise
of jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India.
Headnotes†
Constitution of India – Art.142 – Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 –
ss.13(1)(ia), 13(1)(iii) – Whether on facts there is irretrievable
breakdown of marriage and it ought to be dissolved on that
ground in exercise of jurisdiction u/Article 142:
Held: Yes – Parties have lived separately for over a decade and
there is a complete absence of marital ties – Multiple attempts
at reconciliation through mediation have failed – Neither party
has shown any willingness or inclination to restore the marital
bond – Marriage has completely and irrevocably broken down –
Continuing such a marriage would only perpetuate hardship and
serve no useful purpose – The marriage between the appellant and
the respondent dissolved u/Art.142 on the ground of irretrievable
breakdown of marriage – However, the respondent-mother is
entitled to visitation rights with her daughter, in the terms directed.
[Paras 9, 12]
List of Acts
Constitution of India; Hindu Marriage Act, 1955; Dowry Prohibition
Act, 1961; Penal Code, 1860.
List of Keywords
Irretrievable breakdown of marriage; Exercise of jurisdiction under
Article 142 of the Constitution of India; Marriage dissolved on the
* Author
[2025] 4 S.C.R. 1503
Ramanuj Kumar v. Priyanka
ground of irretrievable breakdown; Complete justice; Prolonged
separation; Decree of divorce; Mental and physical cruelty; Verbal
abuse; Cruelty; Custody or visitation rights; Dissolution of marriage;
Prolonged hostility; Irreparable damage; Mutual allegations of grave
and serious nature; welfare of the child.
Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 14276 of 2024
From the Judgment and Order dated 28.06.2023 of the High Court
of Jharkhand at Ranchi in FA No. 242 of 2019
Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellant:
Paarthiv Goswami, Sr. Adv., Ms. Prerna Singh, Kushagra Raj.
Advs. for the Respondent:
Sabyasanchi, Ms. Sugandha Anand.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
Vikram Nath, J.
1. The present appeal arises from the judgment dated 28.06.2023
passed by the High Court of Jharkhand in First Appeal No. 242
of 2019, whereby the appellant/husband’s appeal was dismissed,
affirming the judgment dated 02.07.2019 of the Family Court, Ranchi
in Original Suit No. 107 of 2014. By the said judgment, the Family
Court dismissed the appellant’s petition for dissolution of marriage
under Sections 13(1)(ia) and (iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.1
2. The marriage between the appellant and the respondent was
solemnized on 24.11.2012. Two children were born out of the
said wedlock. The first child, a daughter, was born on 17.08.2013.
Thereafter, on 06.03.2014, the appellant instituted a petition under
Sections 13(1)(ia) and (iii) of the HMA before the Family Court,
Ranchi (M.T.S. No. 107 of 2014), seeking a decree of divorce. At
1 HMA
1504 [2025] 4 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
the time of filing the suit, the respondent was pregnant with their
second child.
2.1. Subsequently, the respondent filed Complaint Case No.
1980/2014, alleging mental and physical cruelty against the
appellant and his parents, invoking provisions of Section 498A
of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3 and 4 of the
Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. On 30.11.2014, the respondent
gave birth to their second child, who was diagnosed with cerebral
palsy. In the divorce proceedings, the appellant alleged that
the respondent subjected him and his family to verbal abuse,
amounting to cruelty. These allegations were denied by the
respondent, who countered with allegations of mental and
physical cruelty inflicted upon her by the appellant.
2.2. Upon hearing both parties, the Family Court vide its order
dated 02.07.2019, dismissed the appellant’s petition for divorce.
Aggrieved, the appellant preferred First Appeal No. 242 of 2019
before the High Court.
2.3. The High Court, by the impugned judgment dated 28.06.2023,
dismissed the appeal, holding inter alia that since the parties
cohabited until March 2014, the allegations of cruelty made
prior thereto could not be sustained, particularly in view of the
fact that the second child was born on 30.11.2014.
2.4. Aggrieved by the concurrent findings of both Courts below, the
appellant has approached this Court.
3. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for both parties and
have carefully perused the record. Both parties were also present
appellant through video conferencing and respondent in person.
They were also heard.
4. The appellant now seeks dissolution of marriage on the ground of
irretrievable breakdown. It is submitted that the parties have lived
separately for over eleven years and that the relationship has been
irreparably damaged by prolonged hostility, deep-seated bitterness,
and mutual allegations of a grave and serious nature. The marriage,
it is contended, has reached a point of no return, with no possibility
of reconciliation or revival.
5. It is undisputed that two children were born out of the wedlock. The
appellant submits that the elder daughter, presently aged about 12
[2025] 4 S.C.R. 1505
Ramanuj Kumar v. Priyanka
years, has been in his exclusive care and custody since her infancy.
She has been residing with him since the age of six months, and all
expenses relating to her education and upbringing are being borne
solely by him.
6. On the other hand, the respondent states that the second child, born
in November 2014 and diagnosed with cerebral palsy, was under
her sole care from birth. Unfortunately, the said child passed away
after a few years. The respondent submits that she single-handedly
provided care and support for the special needs of the second child
during this time.
7. The appellant further submits that, despite the prolonged separation
of more than a decade, the respondent has never approached
any court seeking custody or visitation rights concerning the elder
daughter. He thus asserts that the custody of the child has lawfully
and practically remained with him. Nonetheless, he expresses that
he has no objection if reasonable visitation rights are granted to the
respondent at his residence.
8. In response to a query from this Court as to why she never pursued
custody or visitation of her daughter during these years, the
respondent stated that she was entirely occupied with the care of her
second child, who required extensive attention and support due to her
medical condition. Further being a government servant working as
Agricultural Coordinator with the State Government of Bihar she had
to discharge her official duties as well. In these circumstances, she
lacked the time, resources, and emotional capacity to simultaneously
pursue litigation for custody or visitation. Additionally the respondent
has not claimed any alimony from the appellant.
9. From the factual matrix before us, it is evident that the marriage
has completely and irrevocably broken down. Multiple attempts at
reconciliation through mediation have failed. Neither party has shown
any willingness or inclination to restore the marital bond. The parties
have lived separate lives for over a decade, and there is a complete
absence of marital ties. In our considered view, continuing such a
marriage would only perpetuate hardship and serve no useful purpose.
This is a fit case for exercise of this Court’s jurisdiction under Article
142 of the Constitution of India to do complete justice and dissolve
the marriage on the ground of irretrievable breakdown.
1506 [2025] 4 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
10. While we note that the respondent has neither filed nor pursued
any formal petition for custody or visitation of the elder daughter,
we are of the view that, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of
this case, she ought not to be deprived of access to her daughter.
Depriving the mother of all contact would not only cause emotional
harm to her but may also adversely impact the child. In the interest
of justice, equity, and the welfare of the child, we deem it appropriate
to grant visitation rights to the respondent so that she may gradually
rebuild a bond with her daughter. This way the daughter will also
be blessed with the love, affection and guidance from her mother.
11. Accordingly, we direct that the respondent shall be entitled to visitation
rights with her daughter on two days each month. The parties shall
mutually fix convenient dates each month, on which the respondent
may visit the child at the appellant’s residence and spend quality
time with her. The parties are directed to cooperate in good faith and
ensure smooth implementation of this arrangement. All reasonable
expenses incurred in facilitating these visits shall be borne by the
appellant. It is clarified that this arrangement does not amount to a
determination of custody, and both parties shall remain at liberty to
approach the appropriate forum for adjudication of custody rights,
if they so desire.
12. In light of the foregoing discussion, the appeal is allowed. The marriage
between the appellant and the respondent stands dissolved under
Article 142 of the Constitution of India on the ground of irretrievable
breakdown of marriage. The respondent shall be entitled to visitation
in the terms set forth above.
13. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
Result of the case: Appeal allowed.
†
Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Irretrievable breakdown of marriage"Sign in to search