The Supreme Court of India in A. Ranjithkumar v. E. Kavitha [1] reaffirmed its power to dissolve marriages on the ground of irretrievable breakdown, despite the absence of such a statutory provision in the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The Court invoked Article 142 of the Constitution to bring finality to a matrimonial dispute that had dragged on for more than a decade. The judgment is significant both for its equitable balancing of competing interests and for its reiteration of judicial creativity in family law.
I. Introduction
The Supreme Court of India in A. Ranjithkumar v. E. Kavitha [1] reaffirmed its power to dissolve marriages on the ground of irretrievable breakdown, despite the absence of such a statutory provision in the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The Court invoked Article 142 of the Constitution to bring finality to a matrimonial dispute that had dragged on for more than a decade. The judgment is significant both for its equitable balancing of competing interests and for its reiteration of judicial creativity in family law.
—
II. Factual Background
The appellant-husband and respondent-wife were married on 15 February 2009 and subsequently relocated to the United States. A son was born to them on 7 April 2010. Differences soon arose, leading the husband to file a petition in 2012 seeking divorce under §§ 13(1)(ia) and (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, alleging cruelty and adultery.[2]
The Family Court, by its decree dated 17 October 2016, dissolved the marriage on the ground of cruelty, rejecting allegations of adultery. On appeal, the Madras High Court reversed the decree on 24 August 2018, holding that the acts attributed as cruelty were primarily the rude utterances of the wife’s father, which could not be attributed to the wife herself. Meanwhile, on 5 March 2017, the husband contracted a second marriage. Aggrieved by the High Court’s judgment, the husband approached the Supreme Court.
—
III. Issues for Determination
The central questions before the Supreme Court were:
1. Whether the decree of divorce granted by the Family Court was justified on grounds of cruelty.
2. Whether the marriage, having irretrievably broken down, could be dissolved by invoking the extraordinary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution.
3. Whether the wife and child were entitled to financial security in the form of permanent alimony.
—
IV. The Judgment
The Bench comprising Vikram Nath, J. and Sandeep Mehta, J. held that there was no possibility of reconciliation as the parties had been living apart since 2010. The husband’s remarriage in 2017 further reinforced the conclusion that the marriage was dead in substance. The Court accordingly held that the marriage had irretrievably broken down.
Exercising its powers under Article 142, the Court dissolved the marriage and directed the husband to pay a lump sum of ₹1.25 crore as permanent alimony to the wife and their son. The amount was ordered to be paid in five equal quarterly instalments between September 2025 and September 2026. A failure to comply would result in the recall of the divorce decree, with forfeiture of amounts already paid.[3]
—
V. Analysis
A. Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage
This judgment adds to the line of precedents in which the Supreme Court has invoked Article 142 to dissolve marriages where cohabitation has become impossible. The Court has previously exercised similar powers in Naveen Kohli v. Neelu Kohli [4], Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh [5], and R. Srinivas Kumar v. R. Shametha [6]. In each of these cases, the Court emphasised that once a marriage has broken down irretrievably, forcing parties to remain legally bound serves no purpose.
B. Responsibility for Third-Party Conduct
The High Court’s reasoning that rude utterances of the wife’s father could not amount to cruelty by the wife was affirmed by the Supreme Court. This clarifies the principle that cruelty under matrimonial law must arise from the conduct of the spouse, not third parties.
C. Equitable Relief through Alimony
The order of permanent alimony ensures financial security for the wife and child, balancing the equities in light of the husband’s remarriage. The quantum, ₹1.25 crore, reflects the Court’s recognition that the husband had not provided adequate financial support during the years of separation.
—
VI. Broader Implications
The judgment reignites the debate over recognising irretrievable breakdown of marriage as a statutory ground for divorce. The Law Commission of India, in its 71st Report (1978) and 217th Report (2009), recommended such inclusion,[7] but legislative action has been pending. In the absence of statutory reform, Article 142 remains the Supreme Court’s principal mechanism for addressing matrimonial deadlocks.
—
VII. Conclusion
The Supreme Court in A. Ranjithkumar v. E. Kavitha pragmatically dissolved a marriage that had long ceased to exist in reality, while safeguarding the financial interests of the wife and child. The judgment underscores the Court’s willingness to employ Article 142 to fill legislative gaps in family law, yet also highlights the pressing need for Parliament to incorporate irretrievable breakdown as a formal ground for divorce.
—
Footnotes
[1]: A. Ranjithkumar v. E. Kavitha, 2025 INSC 978 (Sup. Ct. India).
[2]: Hindu Marriage Act, No. 25 of 1955, § 13(1)(ia)–(ib) (India).
[3]: A. Ranjithkumar v. E. Kavitha, 2025 INSC 978 (Sup. Ct. India).
[4]: Naveen Kohli v. Neelu Kohli, (2006) 4 S.C.C. 558 (India).
[5]: Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh, (2007) 4 S.C.C. 511 (India).
[6]: R. Srinivas Kumar v. R. Shametha, (2019) 9 S.C.C. 409 (India).
[7]: Law Comm’n of India, 71st Report: The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage as a Ground for Divorce (Apr. 1978); Law Comm’n of India, 217th Report: Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage – Another Ground for Divorce (Mar. 2009).