He lost at Family Court and High Court. The Supreme Court still granted divorce.

Two lives, one daughter, and a marriage that died twelve years ago

When the husband walked into the Family Court in Agartala in 2019, he was asking for one thing: a divorce. He had been living apart from his wife since 2010. Their daughter, born in 2011, had never known a home where both parents lived together. The Family Court said no. The High Court of Tripura said no. By the time the matter reached the Supreme Court of India in August 2023, the couple had been separated for thirteen years. The question was no longer whether the marriage could be saved. The question was whether the law would acknowledge what everyone already knew.

The stakes were not just legal. They were human. A daughter growing up without a settled future. A husband who had spent over a decade trying to end a marriage that, by every practical measure, had already ended. A wife who insisted on conditions that made reconciliation impossible. And a legal system that, for all its wisdom, had no statutory ground called "irretrievable breakdown."

The marriage that never really started

The couple married in 2007 in Tripura. He was an engineer in Agartala. She was a teacher. Within three years, the relationship had soured. The husband complained that his wife disrespected his parents and prioritised her teaching job over family life. The wife alleged cruelty and dowry demands. She made one condition clear: she would only live with her husband if he relocated to Udaipur.

In 2010, while pregnant, the wife left for her parents' home. She never returned. Their daughter was born in 2011 and has lived with the mother ever since.

The husband tried the first legal lever available to him. On August 29, 2013, he filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking restitution of conjugal rights. The Family Court, Agartala — later transferred to the Family Court, Udaipur — dismissed it. He appealed to the High Court of Tripura. Then he withdrew the appeal.

That was the first signal that the marriage was beyond repair. The husband had tried to force the wife back. She refused. The court could not compel her. And the husband gave up.

The divorce petition that failed twice

On March 8, 2019, the husband filed a petition for dissolution of marriage under Sections 13(1)(ia) and 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act — cruelty and desertion. The Family Court, West Tripura, Agartala, dismissed it. The court held that the matrimonial bond had not ruptured beyond repair.

The husband appealed. On February 28, 2022, the High Court of Tripura at Agartala dismissed the appeal. The High Court relied on Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh, which laid down illustrative instances of mental cruelty. The High Court concluded that the parties were not at such bitterness that they could not give a new lease of life to their relationship.

The High Court also noted a critical legal limitation: irretrievable breakdown of marriage is not a statutory ground available to High Courts. Only the Supreme Court, exercising its power under Article 142 of the Constitution, can grant divorce on that basis.

The husband was stuck. He had been living apart from his wife for twelve years. He had a daughter he barely saw. And the law told him: keep trying.

What each side argued before the Supreme Court

The husband approached the Supreme Court by way of a Special Leave Petition. His argument was straightforward: the marriage had broken down irretrievably. Twelve years of separation. No possibility of reconciliation. The wife's insistence on relocation to Udaipur was a condition the husband could not meet. The bitterness had consumed whatever was left of the relationship.

The wife's position was equally firm. She was willing to live with her husband — but only in Udaipur. She had a teaching job there. She had family support. She would not move to Agartala. She argued that the husband's petition for divorce was itself an act of cruelty, an attempt to abandon her and their daughter.

The Supreme Court saw what both sides could not: that the marriage was already dead. The question was not who killed it. The question was whether the law would let it be buried.

The Constitution Bench answer the Court needed

Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, writing for the Bench that also included Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia, turned to two recent decisions that had reshaped the law on irretrievable breakdown.

The first was Rakesh Raman v. Kavita, decided in 2023. The Supreme Court had held that cruelty as a fault may not be attributable to one party alone. Despite irretrievable breakdown, keeping parties together amounts to cruelty on both sides. The Court observed: "Continued bitterness, dead emotions, and long separation can be construed as a case of irretrievable breakdown of marriage, which is also a facet of cruelty."

The second was the Constitution Bench decision in Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan, also decided in 2023. The five-judge Bench had held that where there is irretrievable breakdown of marriage, dissolution is the only solution. The Supreme Court can grant a decree of divorce under Article 142 of the Constitution, even if the statutory grounds under the Hindu Marriage Act are not made out.

These two cases gave the Court the doctrinal foundation it needed. The husband's petition under Section 13(1)(ia) — cruelty — could be sustained not because the wife was cruel, but because the marriage itself had become cruel to both parties. Twelve years of separation. No possibility of reconciliation. That was cruelty enough.

The doctrine that mattered: irretrievable breakdown as cruelty

The ratio decidendi in this case is deceptively simple. The Supreme Court held that continued bitterness, dead emotions, and long separation can be construed as irretrievable breakdown of marriage, which is itself a facet of cruelty. Keeping parties together despite irretrievable breakdown amounts to cruelty on both sides.

This is a significant expansion of the concept of cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act. Traditionally, cruelty required proof of conduct by one spouse that caused mental or physical harm to the other. The Court has now recognised that the breakdown itself — the deadness of the relationship — can constitute cruelty, regardless of who caused it.

The second ratio is procedural but equally important: the Supreme Court can grant a decree of divorce under Article 142 of the Constitution where there is irretrievable breakdown, even if the statutory grounds are not fully made out. This power is not available to Family Courts or High Courts. Only the Supreme Court can do it.

THE PLAY: If you are representing a client in a marriage that has been dead for over a decade, and the Family Court and High Court have both refused divorce, the Supreme Court under Article 142 is your only forum. Cite Shilpa Sailesh and Rakesh Raman to argue that irretrievable breakdown itself is cruelty, and that keeping the parties together is more cruel than letting them go.

What the Court actually ordered

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal. It quashed and set aside the High Court judgment dated February 28, 2022. It granted a decree of divorce on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage.

But the Court did not stop there. It imposed conditions to protect the wife and daughter.

The husband was directed to deposit Rs. 20,00,000 (twenty lakhs) in the wife's account within six months. This amount was to be kept as a fixed deposit. The quarterly interest would be paid to the wife. The fixed deposit would be encashable only after five years — presumably when the daughter turns 18.

Until the full deposit of Rs. 20 lakhs, the husband must pay monthly maintenance of Rs. 15,000 to the wife.

The Court also granted visitation rights to the husband regarding his daughter. The terms of visitation are to be decided by the Mediation Centre of the High Court of Tripura within three months. The parties were directed to appear before the Mediation Centre on September 1, 2023.

Critically, the decree of divorce will be handed over to the husband only after he has deposited the full Rs. 20 lakhs. The Court made the divorce conditional on financial compliance.

The obiter that reveals the Court's heart

Justice Kaul made an observation that is not part of the ratio but reveals the Court's anguish. He said that nothing would give the Court more satisfaction than if the parties could work out their differences and live together, if only for the sake of their child. But the rigid attitude of both parties and their failure to appreciate the beauty of compromise made reconciliation impossible.

This is a signal to every family law practitioner: the Supreme Court will exhaust every possibility of reconciliation before it invokes Article 142. If you want a divorce on the ground of irretrievable breakdown, you must show that reconciliation was attempted and failed. The Court will not grant a divorce lightly.

Why this matters in practice

For advocates, this judgment is a roadmap. If you have a client whose marriage has been dead for years, and the Family Court and High Court have both refused divorce, the Supreme Court under Article 142 is the only option. But you must show: (a) long separation — at least 10-12 years; (b) failed attempts at reconciliation; (c) that keeping the parties together is more cruel than letting them go; and (d) that financial arrangements for the wife and children are in place.

For CFOs and founders, this judgment is a reminder that marriage is not just an emotional contract. It is a financial one. The Supreme Court imposed a Rs. 20 lakh deposit and ongoing maintenance. If you are a high-net-worth individual, the financial terms of a divorce under Article 142 can be substantial. Plan accordingly.

For the wife and daughter in this case, the judgment is a mixed outcome. The marriage is dissolved. But the daughter will have Rs. 20 lakhs in a fixed deposit, earning quarterly interest, encashable after five years. The monthly maintenance of Rs. 15,000 will continue until the deposit is made. The husband will have visitation rights. The daughter will grow up knowing that the law tried to protect her, even if it could not protect her parents' marriage.

The bottom line

If your marriage has been dead for over a decade, and every court below has refused divorce, the Supreme Court under Article 142 is your last resort — but you must prove irretrievable breakdown, failed reconciliation, and provide financial security for the spouse and child, because the Court will not dissolve a marriage without ensuring that the weaker party is not left destitute.