Supreme Court vs Family Court: Divorce on Grounds of Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage

Family Court and the Supreme Court perform very different roles in divorce: one applies the strict grounds in the Hindu Marriage Act, while the other, under Article 142(1), can sometimes “cut through” the fault‑finding to end a dead marriage and balance equities between the spouses.

Educational article for Legal Light Consulting – LLC Lawyer

Supreme Court vs Family Court in Divorce: How Article 142(1) Works

When a marriage breaks down beyond repair, clients often ask why their Family Court judge insists on evidence of “cruelty” or “desertion,” while news reports say the Supreme Court dissolved a marriage on “irretrievable breakdown.”

This difference comes from two very different jurisdictions: the Family Court under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA), and the Supreme Court under Article 142(1) of the Constitution.

This article is for educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For personalised guidance, please consult a qualified lawyer or the team at Legal Light Consulting – LLC Lawyer.

1. Family Court: Bound by the Hindu Marriage Act

In a regular divorce case before a Family Court (or District Court exercising HMA jurisdiction):

• The judge must apply the specific grounds in Sections 13 and 13‑B of the HMA and allied laws (such as cruelty, desertion, adultery, mental disorder, or mutual consent).

• The court is bound by “fault‑divorce” provisions: it has to record evidence, assess witnesses, and decide whether the alleged matrimonial offence is proved.

• Even if the relationship is unhappy or practically over, the Family Court cannot simply say “the marriage has broken down” and grant divorce unless a statutory ground is satisfied or both parties consent under Section 13‑B.

In short, the Family Court is a trial court applying the statute; it must decide “who did what” and whether that fits the law.

2. Supreme Court: Special power under Article 142(1)

Article 142(1) of the Constitution gives the Supreme Court a unique power to pass any decree or order necessary to do “complete justice” in a case before it. In matrimonial matters, this has been interpreted to include:

• Granting a decree of divorce on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage, even though that ground is not written into the HMA.

• Departing from normal procedure and strict statutory requirements when rigid application of fault‑based provisions would prolong suffering or injustice.

• Acting as a “problem‑solver” and equity‑balancer, rather than a trial court deciding every allegation of fault.

Crucially:

• This power is discretionary, not a legal right. No spouse can insist that the Supreme Court must grant divorce under Article 142(1).

• The Court uses it sparingly, guided by factors laid down in leading cases like Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan and subsequent judgments.

3. Different approaches: Evidence vs holistic assessment

Family Court approach under HMA:

• Frames issues like “Did the respondent treat the petitioner with cruelty?”

• Records detailed oral and documentary evidence.

• Gives a finding on whether a matrimonial offence is proved.

• Grants or refuses divorce strictly within Sections 13 and 13‑B and related provisions.

Supreme Court approach under Article 142(1):

• Is not required to conduct a full fault‑finding trial on every allegation.

• Takes a holistic view of the relationship, looking at:

  • Duration of separation.

  • Number and nature of pending cases between the parties.

  • Attempts at mediation and settlement and whether they have repeatedly failed.

  • The level of bitterness and whether there is any real chance of reconciliation.

• Asks whether the marriage has irretrievably broken down and whether continuing the formal legal bond serves any genuine purpose.

• Balances equities: for example, by granting divorce while also fixing fair permanent alimony, one‑time settlement, custody or visitation rights.

Where the Family Court asks, “Has a legal ground been proved?”, the Supreme Court under Article 142(1) asks, “Is there any realistic possibility of this marriage being revived, and what outcome would do complete justice to both parties?”

4. What “irretrievable breakdown” means in practice

“Irretrievable breakdown of marriage” is not a formula that automatically dissolves a marriage. Courts have indicated that it generally involves:

• Long, continuous separation over several years.

• Deep‑seated hostility and multiple litigations (criminal complaints, maintenance, domestic violence, custody, etc.).

• Repeated failure of mediation, counselling, or settlement efforts.

• Situations where forcing the parties to remain legally married would be empty and only create further harassment or mental agony.

Only when the Supreme Court is satisfied that the marriage has completely failed, with no real scope of reconciliation, does it consider using Article 142(1) to dissolve it on this ground.

5. What this means for clients

For individuals contemplating divorce or already in litigation:

• You usually start in the Family Court, using the grounds available under the HMA or other personal laws.

• You cannot ask the Family Court to grant divorce purely on “irretrievable breakdown of marriage”; it must find a statutory ground or mutual consent.

• The Supreme Court may consider irretrievable breakdown under Article 142(1) in suitable cases that reach it through appeals, transfer petitions, or special leave petitions.

• Even in the Supreme Court, there is no automatic divorce: every case depends on its facts, the overall history, and the Court’s sense of what constitutes “complete justice.”

Realistic expectations and careful documentation of separation history, mediation attempts, and actual hardship are critical.

6. FAQs (Educational Only)

Q1. Can I directly file for divorce in the Supreme Court under Article 142(1)?

Generally, no. Most divorces must begin in the Family Court. The Supreme Court’s Article 142(1) power is used in matters already before it (appeals, transfer petitions, etc.) where complete justice requires final closure.

Q2. Is “irretrievable breakdown of marriage” a legal ground I can plead in the Family Court?

No. The Family Court must rely on statutory grounds in the HMA and allied laws; irretrievable breakdown is a ground recognised only by the Supreme Court in exercise of its constitutional power.

Q3. Does the Supreme Court ignore all allegations and evidence under Article 142(1)?

No. It considers the overall record and past proceedings but does not need to conduct a full trial on who is “at fault.” The focus is on whether the marriage can realistically be saved.

Q4. Can one spouse block divorce if they oppose it in the Supreme Court?

Opposition is relevant but not decisive. In suitable cases, the Supreme Court has granted divorce on irretrievable breakdown even when one spouse objected, if continuing the marriage was clearly unjust.

Q5. How can Legal Light Consulting – LLC Lawyer assist?

A specialised Supreme Court practice can:

• Assess whether your case is best pursued in the Family Court, High Court, or Supreme Court.

• Strategise around transfer petitions, appeals, and Article 142(1) arguments.

• Help present a clear, fair picture of your marital history, hardships, and settlement options.

Disclaimer:

This article and FAQ are for educational and informational purposes only. They do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon as a substitute for personalised consultation. For advice tailored to your situation, please contact a qualified advocate or the team at Legal Light Consulting – LLC Lawyer.