- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
KUMARI REKHA v. SHAMBHU SARAN PASWAN
Factual and Procedural Background
The appellant-wife (Kumari Rekha) and the respondent-husband (Shambhu Saran Paswan) were married on 24 April 1999 and have a daughter born on 7 June 2001. The parties have been living separately for more than twelve years (the wife alleging separation since 2008, the husband since 2012).
Proceedings commenced when the wife filed Title Suit (Matrimonial) No. 1 of 2009 under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking dissolution of marriage. The Family Court, Munger, dismissed her petition on 4 June 2013 and, on 11 June 2013, allowed the husband’s petition under Section 9 for restitution of conjugal rights. The wife’s appeal (Misc. Appeal No. 501 of 2013) was dismissed by the High Court of Judicature at Patna on 4 June 2020. Challenging that decision, the wife obtained special leave and filed the present Civil Appeal No. 3489 of 2025 before the Supreme Court.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether, in the circumstances of prolonged separation and failed efforts at reconciliation, the Supreme Court should exercise its plenary power under Article 142 of the Constitution to dissolve the marriage on the ground of irretrievable breakdown, notwithstanding the absence of a statutory ground established under the Hindu Marriage Act.
- Whether the anxieties expressed by the respondent-husband regarding the social ramifications for the parties’ adult daughter constitute a sufficient reason to refuse a decree of divorce.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant-Wife’s Arguments
- The marriage has irretrievably broken down; twelve years of separation and acrimony leave no possibility of reconciliation.
- The daughter is now an adult MBBS student in Puducherry and fully capable of making her own decisions; concern for her future cannot justify continuation of a dead marriage.
- The respondent never cared for the child; all expenses for upbringing and education have been shouldered by the appellant.
Respondent-Husband’s Arguments
- He is willing to resume cohabitation for the sake of their daughter’s future, fearing social stigma attached to a divorce in the rural milieu.
- The wife repudiated the marriage only after securing public employment as a Child Development Project Officer, a position he helped her achieve financially and emotionally.
- No statutory ground for divorce is proved; the judgments of the Family Court and High Court are correct and should be affirmed.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 544 | The Supreme Court’s power under Article 142 to dissolve a marriage on the ground of irretrievable breakdown even when statutory grounds are not satisfied. | The Court relied on this decision to justify exercising Article 142 powers to dissolve the parties’ marriage despite the respondent’s opposition. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court noted the undisputed fact of at least twelve years of separation and multiple unsuccessful attempts at reconciliation. After hearing counsel and interacting virtually with the adult daughter—whom the Court found mature and capable of independent decision-making—the Bench concluded that the marriage was beyond salvage. Both parties are in their fifties, further diminishing prospects of reunion.
The respondent’s plea that a decree of divorce would harm the daughter’s marital prospects was considered unpersuasive, particularly because he had had no contact with her during the period of estrangement. The Court characterized this objection as an attempt to prolong litigation.
Invoking Article 142 and guided by the Constitution Bench ruling in Shilpa Sailesh, the Court held that statutory impediments under the Hindu Marriage Act do not restrict its power to grant equitable relief where a marriage has irretrievably broken down. Given the protracted separation, failed reconciliation efforts, and the parties’ stage in life, the Court found it just and proper to dissolve the marriage to allow all concerned—including the daughter—to move forward.
Holding and Implications
The appeal is allowed; the marriage is dissolved by a decree of divorce. No order for alimony was passed as the appellant-wife made no such claim.
The immediate consequence is that the parties are freed from the marital bond, bringing finality to long-standing litigation. While the Court drew on existing precedent, it did not create a new legal rule; rather, it applied Article 142 in line with established jurisprudence on irretrievable breakdown of marriage.
2025 INSC 631
1
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3489 OF 2025
[ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NO. 18812 OF 2022]
KUMARI REKHA …. APPELLANT
VERSUS
SHAMBHU SARAN PASWAN ... RESPONDENT
J U D G M E N T
DIPANKAR DATTA, J.
1. This appeal registers a challenge to the judgment and decree dated 4th June, 2020 of the High Court of Judicature at Patna1in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 501 of 2013. Under challenge before the High Court were (i) judgment and decree dated 4thJune, 2013 of the Principal Judge, Family
1 High Court
1
2
Court, Munger, Bihar, dismissing a petition2under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 presented by the appellant-wife and (ii) the judgment and decree dated 11thJune, 2013 allowing a petition under section 9 of the said Act of the respondent-husband. The High Court dismissed the appeal and, thereby, upheld the impugned judgment and decree of the Family Court.
2. The marriage between the appellant-wife and the respondent-husband was solemnized on 24thApril, 1999. They were blessed with a daughter on 7thJune, 2001. It is not in dispute that the parties have been living separately for quite some time. According to the appellant-wife, they have been living separately since 2008 while the respondent-husband claims that the separation is since 2012. Be that as it may, admittedly, they have been living separately for at least a little in excess of 12 (twelve) years.
3. Having perused the materials on record and considering the factual situation of separation in excess of 12 (twelve) years, we had put it across to learned senior counsel for the parties as to whether any reunion by way of reconciliation is possible.
4. Ms. Nivedita Nirvikar, learned senior counsel for the appellant-wife ruled out any scope for such reconciliation and insisted for a decree of divorce on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage. According to her, because of the acrimony between the parties, there is nothing left of the marriage.
2 Title Suit (Matrimonial) No. 1 of 2 009
3
5. Per contra, Mr. Ashok Kumar Choudhary, learned senior counsel for the respondent-husband submitted, on instructions, that the respondent- husband was more than willing to have resumption of marital relationship particularly having regard to the future of the child of the parties. He contended that the petitioner-wife started showing her true colours once she obtained public employment. The respondent-husband had huge contributions for what the appellant-wife is today (she happens to be a Child Development Project Officer). Not only was she encouraged by him to prepare for securing public employment, the entire expenses for her to live a dignified, fulfilling and meaningful life were borne by him. Conveniently, she repudiated the contribution of the respondent-husband and disowned him after such employment. According to Mr. Choudhary, in light of the socio-economic conditions of the rural area from where the respondent-husband hails, it would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to find a suitable groom for his child. Having regard to the stigma that is attached with a divorce, no respectable family would agree to give in marriage their son with the child of a divorcee. Even otherwise, it has not been demonstrated how the Family Court or the High Court erred in not granting relief to the appellant-wife. Placing reliance on several decisions of this Court, Mr. Choudhary, thus, assiduously urged that this appeal be dismissed.
6. We heard submission of Ms. Nirvikar that the child of the parties has since grown up and she is an adult, pursuing her medical course in Puducherry. According to Ms. Nirvikar, the respondent-husband never
4
cared for his child and all expenses for her up-bringing as well as education have been borne by the appellant-wife. That apart, she was an aspirant for public employment even before her marriage. With great deal of personal effort and without anyone's assistance she could secure public employment. Submissions to the contrary are entirely wrong.
7. We heard rival contentions of the parties with patience and considering that the respondent-husband was overly concerned about his child's future, particularly about her married life, decided to interact with her on the virtual platform.
8. In course of interaction, we could ascertain that the child of the parties is in the 2ndyear of her MBBS course in a medical college in Puducherry. She is approaching marriageable age. We found her sufficiently mature to make her own decisions. Although the parties were not visible on the screen, their respective senior counsel did join the proceedings. Even if the parties had not joined proceedings virtually, we have no doubt that they have been told of the interaction that we had with their child.
9. We need not burden this judgment with what the child of the parties answered while responding to the other questions posed to her by both of us. Suffice to record, we believe that it is a fit case for us to invoke powers conferred on us by Article 142 of the Constitution of India and to dissolve the marriage between the parties on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage. We are persuaded to do so, having considered the prolonged period of separation and the multiple failed attempts at
5
reconciliation, which clearly indicate that there is no possibility of reunion, as well as their age (both are quinquagenarian).
10. Mr. Choudhary for the respondent-husband once again urged us to not grant divorce as it would not be in the best interest of the child. We are not impressed by this submission, especially in light of the fact that the respondent-husband and his daughter have had no contact during the entire period of separation. To us, this appears to be a mere attempt to prolong the litigation and stall the inevitable.
11. Keeping in mind the totality of the facts and circumstances, we are of the clear view that it would be in the best interest of both the parties, and their daughter too, to put a quietus to this protracted litigation. It is our hope that this quietus allows all members of the family to move on in life.
12. Even though the respondent-husband has vehemently opposed the prayer for dissolution of marriage contending that none of the available grounds on which a Hindu marriage could be dissolved is present, the same is not a bar for us to exercise our powers under Article 142 of the Constitution; more particularly when we are satisfied that it is a case of irretrievable breakdown of marriage. In this regard, one may refer profitably to the decision of the Constitution Bench of this Court in Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan3.
13. Accordingly, we dissolve the marriage between the parties by a decree of divorce. Decree be drawn up accordingly.
6
14. Since the appellant-wife has no claim for alimony, no order is made in that behalf.
15. The appeal, accordingly, stands allowed.
…………………………….J.
[DIPANKAR DATTA]
…………………………....J.
[MANMOHAN]
NEW DELHI; May 06, 2025.
Alert