Supreme Court Divorce on Grounds of Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage
In Transfer Petition (Civil) No. 278 of 2023, the Supreme Court of India used its extraordinary power under Article 142(1) of the Constitution to dissolve the marriage between Rinku Baheti and Sandesh Sharda on the ground of irretrievable breakdown, even though such a ground does not appear in the Hindu Marriage Act and despite opposition from the other spouse.
This landmark decision is highly relevant for transfer‑petition and matrimonial‑law practice and is ideal educational content for a firm like Legal Light Consulting – LLC Lawyer.
Background of the Rinku Baheti case
The case arose from a divorce petition pending before the Family Court at Bhopal, which the wife sought to transfer to Pune by filing Transfer Petition (Civil) No. 278 of 2023 before the Supreme Court.
While dealing with the transfer request, the Court examined the long‑standing matrimonial dispute, multiple litigations, and complete failure of the relationship between the parties.
The Bench of Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Pankaj Mithal carefully evaluated the history of separation, failed mediation efforts, and the absence of any real chance of reconciliation.
The Court noted that no child had been born from the marriage and that continued litigation would only prolong bitterness without reviving the marital bond.
Article 142(1) and irretrievable breakdown of marriage
Article 142(1) empowers the Supreme Court to pass such decree or order as is necessary for “complete justice” in any cause or matter pending before it.
This power is discretionary, cannot be claimed as a right by either spouse, and allows the Court to depart from ordinary statutory procedure where rigid application of law would cause injustice.
In Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan, a five‑judge Bench had already clarified that the Supreme Court can dissolve a marriage on the ground of irretrievable breakdown by invoking Article 142(1), while laying down non‑exhaustive factors such as length of separation, pendency of multiple cases, and failed attempts at settlement.
Building on that precedent, the Court in Rinku Baheti reiterated that irretrievable breakdown is not a mechanical formula; the Court must be fully convinced that the marriage has “completely failed” and that there is no realistic possibility of the parties living together as husband and wife.
Why divorce was granted in a transfer petition
Although the matter came to the Supreme Court as a transfer petition, the Court was not confined only to deciding the forum. Using its Article 142(1) power, it looked beyond the transfer prayer and focused on doing complete justice by resolving the deadlocked matrimonial dispute itself.
Key factors that persuaded the Court to grant divorce included:
-
Prolonged separation and accumulation of hostile litigation between the parties.
-
Failed mediation attempts and absence of any genuine possibility of reconciliation.
-
Lack of children from the marriage, making continuation of a purely formal bond unjustified.
On these facts, the Bench held that the marriage had completely broken down and that continuing the legal tie would be empty of substance and only fuel further animosity. The Court therefore granted a decree of divorce under Article 142(1) on the ground of irretrievable breakdown, despite one spouse opposing such relief.
Clarifications on maintenance and misuse of beneficial laws
The judgment also carries an important message on financial relief and the use of women‑protective statutes. The Court observed that beneficial laws are meant to shield women from genuine cruelty and deprivation, not to be used as tools of threat or extortion against husbands.
Referring to earlier decisions such as Rajnesh v. Neha and Kiran Jyot Maini v. Anish Pramod Patel, the Court clarified that permanent alimony is not a means to “match” the other spouse’s wealth; rather, it must be fair, need‑based, and proportionate to the circumstances of both parties.
This reinforces that while the Court is willing to grant divorce under Article 142(1), it simultaneously balances equities through realistic maintenance and avoids incentivising abusive litigation strategies.
Significance for transfer petitions and matrimonial strategy
For litigants and lawyers handling transfer petitions in matrimonial matters, Rinku Baheti v. Sandesh Sharda shows that the Supreme Court can, in appropriate cases, convert a transfer‑driven dispute into a final resolution of the marriage under Article 142(1).
When the record clearly demonstrates a dead marriage, prolonged separation, and failed settlements, the Court may prefer to bring closure rather than merely shifting the venue of continued conflict.
For a Supreme‑Court‑focused practice like Legal Light Consulting – LLC Lawyer, this decision underscores three strategic points:
-
Holistic relief in transfer petitions: A transfer petition can become a platform for complete justice, including divorce and final settlement, where facts justify it.
-
Evidence‑driven approach: Detailed documentation of separation history, prior litigations, mediation efforts, and financial positions is crucial to support an Article 142(1) plea.
-
Ethical use of matrimonial laws: Courts will protect genuine grievances but will also call out misuse of beneficial statutes and unrealistic claims to wealth parity through alimony.
This article is for educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For tailored assistance in drafting transfer petitions, seeking divorce under Article 142(1), or defending against such relief in the Supreme Court of India, parties should consult an experienced Supreme Court lawyer.
