Can a Marriage That Exists Only on Paper Be Forced to Continue? Supreme Court Examines

Marriage, under Hindu Law, has traditionally been viewed as a sacrosanct social institution. Courts have long been cautious in dissolving matrimonial ties, emphasising preservation over termination. However, modern matrimonial jurisprudence increasingly confronts a difficult reality: marriages that survive only in legal records, while emotionally, socially, and practically dead.

In Nayan Bhowmick v. Aparna Chakraborty (2025 INSC 1436), the Supreme Court was called upon to answer a fundamental question: can the law compel parties to remain bound in a marriage that exists only on paper, after decades of separation and unending litigation? The Court’s answer marks a significant reaffirmation of its evolving approach towards irretrievably broken marriages and the use of constitutional powers under Article 142.

Factual Background: A Marriage Lost in Time

The marriage between the appellant-husband and respondent-wife was solemnised in August 2000 according to Hindu rites. Both parties were professionals working as Development Officers with the Life Insurance Corporation of India. Despite familiarity prior to marriage, the matrimonial relationship deteriorated within a year.

By November 2001, the parties began living separately. No children were born from the wedlock. What followed was over two decades of matrimonial litigation, beginning in 2003, marked by multiple proceedings before the trial court, the High Court, and ultimately the Supreme Court.

The husband sought divorce on grounds of desertion and cruelty under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. While the trial court initially granted a divorce, the High Court reversed the decree, holding that desertion was not proved and emphasising the need to preserve the sanctity of marriage. This led to the appeal before the Supreme Court.

Issue

• Can a marriage, which has functionally ceased to exist for over two decades and has survived only through litigation, be legally compelled to continue?

Long Separation as Mental Cruelty

The Supreme Court placed considerable emphasis on the undisputed fact of prolonged separation. The parties had lived apart for nearly 24 years, with no cohabitation, no emotional bonding, and no realistic attempt at reconciliation.

Relying on earlier precedents, the Court reiterated that long separation without any hope of reunion itself constitutes mental cruelty. The marriage, in such circumstances, becomes a source of continuous suffering rather than companionship.

The Court referred to Rakesh Raman v. Kavita (2023), where it was held that a marriage surviving only on paper for 25 years is effectively irretrievably broken and amounts to cruelty to both spouses. Applying the same logic, the Court observed that forcing parties to remain tied to such a marriage serves no constructive purpose.

Strongly Held Differences and Mutual Cruelty

A notable aspect of the judgment is the Court’s refusal to moralise or adjudicate whose vision of marital life was “correct.” Instead, it recognised that strongly held and incompatible views, coupled with refusal to accommodate each other over a long period, can themselves amount to cruelty.

The Court held that:

• Marriage is a relationship between two individuals, not an ideological contest for societal approval.
• Courts should not impose their own notion of marital adjustment.
• When incompatibility becomes permanent and destructive, continued legal bonding becomes oppressive.

This reasoning shifts the focus from isolated acts of cruelty to the overall lived reality of the marital relationship.

Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage: From Concept to Reality

Although the irretrievable breakdown of marriage is not yet a statutory ground under the Hindu Marriage Act, the Supreme Court acknowledged that the concept has gained firm judicial recognition.

Citing Naveen Kohli v. Neelu Kohli (2006) and Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh (2007), the Court reiterated that:

• An unworkable marriage is a source of misery;
• When a marriage has ceased to function as a marital bond, insisting on its continuation undermines human dignity;
• Law cannot ignore social and emotional realities.

The Court observed that in such cases, marriage becomes a legal fiction supported only by formal ties, and refusal to dissolve it may itself amount to cruelty.

Article 142 and the Power to Do Complete Justice

The most significant legal dimension of the judgment lies in the Court’s reliance on Article 142(1) of the Constitution, which empowers the Supreme Court to pass orders necessary to do “complete justice.”

Referring extensively to the Constitution Bench decision in Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan (2023), the Court reaffirmed that:

• The power under Article 142 is not fettered by the fault theory governing matrimonial statutes;
• Courts need not mechanically assign blame when the marriage is demonstrably dead;
• Public interest lies in recognising reality, not in perpetuating legal fictions.

The Court categorically held that no spouse can be compelled to resume marital life with a consort when the marriage has ceased to exist in substance.

Sanctity of Marriage v. Dignity of Individuals

One of the most balanced aspects of the judgment is its nuanced treatment of the sanctity of marriage. The Court did not discard the institution’s social importance. Instead, it clarified that sanctity cannot be preserved by coercion.

The Court observed that:

• Sanctity flows from mutual respect, companionship, and dignity;
• A marriage devoid of these elements loses its moral and social foundation.
• Preservation of marriage should not come at the cost of prolonged suffering.

Importantly, the Court noted that the absence of children from the wedlock eliminated concerns of third-party harm, further strengthening the dissolution case.

Litigation as Perpetuation of Cruelty

A powerful observation made by the Court was that endless matrimonial litigation itself perpetuates cruelty. When cases drag on for decades, marriage survives not as a relationship but as a legal battle.

The Court warned against allowing litigation to reduce marriage to a mere procedural burden, observing that:

• Prolonged litigation leads to emotional exhaustion;
• It traps parties in a cycle of blame, resentment, and stagnation;
• Law should offer closure, not endless continuation of conflict.

Final Decision

The Bench comprising Justice Manmohan and Justice Joymalya Bagchi held:

“In a multitude of cases, this Court has had the opportunity to deal with situations where parties have been living separately for a considerable time and it has been consistently held that long period of separation without any hope for reconciliation amounts to cruelty to both the parties.”

Invoking its powers under Article 142, the Supreme Court dissolved the marriage, holding that:

• The marital bond had irretrievably broken down;
• There was no realistic possibility of reconciliation;
• Continuation of the marriage would serve no useful purpose.

The High Court’s judgment was set aside, and the trial court’s decree of divorce was restored, bringing a 24-year-long marital dispute to an end.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Nayan Bhowmick v. Aparna Chakraborty marks an important reaffirmation of the principle that marriage cannot be reduced to a mere legal compulsion divorced from lived reality. Where a matrimonial relationship has long ceased to function in substance and survives only as a formal legal tie, insistence on its continuation serves neither the institution of marriage nor the individuals bound by it.

By foregrounding dignity, emotional well-being, and the need for closure, the Court has aligned matrimonial adjudication with constitutional values rather than rigid formalism. The judgment recognises that sanctity cannot be preserved through coercion, and that law must respond to human realities rather than perpetuate hollow legal fictions.

Ultimately, the ruling underscores that justice in matrimonial matters lies not in mechanically sustaining dead relationships, but in enabling individuals to disengage from irretrievably broken unions and move forward with dignity and autonomy.

Important Link

Law Library: Notes and Study Material for LLB, LLM, Judiciary, and Entrance Exams