What is the doctrine of irretrievable breakdown of marriage and how was it applied here?
Coram: Vikram Nath; Sandeep Mehta
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — s.13(1)(ia) — Divorce on the ground of cruelty; irretrievable breakdown; daughter's marriage expenses as a continuing parental obligation — Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — s.13(1)(ia) — Concurrent cruelty decree not disturbed — Held: Where spouses have lived apart for over a decade, litigation has been prolonged and acrimonious, mediation has failed, and the wife confines her challenge to a limited monetary claim rather than contesting the divorce, a concurrent cruelty decree affirmed by two courts below is not disturbed, the marriage having in substance ceased to exist and irretrievably broken down. (¶7) Family Law — Parental duty — Daughter's marriage expenses survive marital discord — Held further: A father's obligation to contribute to his daughter's marriage expenses survives independently of matrimonial discord, as a natural extension of parental duty; where the wife has largely raised and supported the children and been reasonable in confining her claim, the husband found capable is directed to pay a specified lump sum as a condition of affirming the decree, with liberty to revive the appeals on default. Appeals disposed of. (¶9, 10)
On what ground was the divorce decree granted and affirmed by the courts below?
The divorce was granted by the Family Court and affirmed by the High Court on the ground of cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, based on the parties' constant acrimony since the inception of marriage, the wife's repeated police complaints found to amount to cruelty, and long separation without any attempt at reconciliation.
Did the Supreme Court interfere with the divorce decree?
No. The Supreme Court found that the marital relationship had ceased to exist in substance, noted the failed mediation attempt, and held that in view of the long separation and irretrievable breakdown of the marriage, there was no reason to interfere with the concurrent decree of divorce.
How did the Court address the parties' dispute over the husband's income and ability to pay?
Despite conflicting claims regarding the husband's earnings from an aquarium shop, rental income and family contributions, the Court, on consideration of the record and submissions, was satisfied that the respondent was capable of making provision for his daughter's marriage.
What principle did the Court apply regarding a father's duty toward his daughter's marriage expenses despite the acrimonious matrimonial dispute?
The Court held that meeting the reasonable marriage expenses of a daughter is a natural extension of a father's parental duty, irrespective of differences with the spouse, and is a modest obligation that survives independently of the marital discord between the parents.
What was the final order passed by the Supreme Court?
The Court affirmed the decree of divorce subject to a direction that the husband pay Rs.10,00,000 to the wife towards their daughter's marriage expenses by 15th October 2025, with liberty to revive the appeals in case of default, and disposed of the appeals accordingly.
What is the doctrine of irretrievable breakdown of marriage and how was it applied here?
The doctrine recognises that where a marriage has broken down beyond repair with no possibility of reconciliation, courts may decline to revive a dead marital relationship even if strict grounds are contested, focusing instead on the substance of the relationship. Here, the Court applied this doctrine by noting the parties' separation since 2009, the failed mediation, and the wife's own limited claim, concluding the relationship had ceased to exist in substance and thus declining to interfere with the divorce.
Prepared by the LexStreak Editorial Desk — verify against the judgment.
One judgment a day. That's the whole habit.
LexStreak turns the Supreme Court's output into a five-minute daily read for advocates — plain-language headnotes, the questions each judgment settles, and the full text when you need it.
Free forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India
Leave granted.
The present appeals arise from the judgment and order dated 18th December 2023 passed by the High Court of Delhi in MAT.APP.(F.C.) No.20 of 2020, whereby the High Court affirmed the decree of divorce granted by the Family Court vide order dated 20th September 2019.
The relevant facts, in brief, are as follows: 3.1. The parties were married on 6th May 1996 and have two children from the marriage: a daughter born in 1997 and a son born in 1999. Signature Not Verified 3.2. In March 2009, the respondent-husband filed a divorce petition being HMA No.135/2009 under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955[^1], on the ground of cruelty. The husband alleged various instances of mental cruelty by the wife, whereas the wife contended that she herself had been subjected to mental and physical cruelty. 3.3. The appellant-wife thereafter filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005[^2] against the respondent- husband and his family members. 3.4. In the DV Act proceedings, the Mahila Court directed the husband to pay maintenance of Rs.6,300/- per month, later enhanced to Rs.7,500/- per month. 3.5. In 2013, the respondent-husband moved an application in the DV Act proceedings seeking DNA testing of both children, claiming they were not his. Eventually, the main complaint under the DV Act was dismissed. On appeal, the appellate Court, by order dated 31st July 2019, held the respondent-husband guilty of domestic violence and directed him to pay Rs.2,00,000/- to the appellant-wife. This was enhanced to Rs.7,00,000/- by the High Court on 9th November 2022 in a revision filed by the appellant- wife. The Special Leave Petition filed by the respondent-husband challenging the said order was dismissed by this Court on 27th March 2023. 3.6. Meanwhile, the Family Court, vide order dated 20th September 2019 in HMA No.299 of 2019, granted divorce on the ground of cruelty. The appellant-wife challenged this before the High Court of Delhi in MAT.APP.(F.C.) No.20 of 2020. 3.7. The High Court, by the impugned judgment, affirmed the decree of divorce. It observed that the parties had been in constant acrimony since the inception of their marriage, leading the wife to make repeated complaints to the police. The High Court held that lodging false complaints amounted to cruelty. It also noted that the parties have lived separately since around 2009, with no attempt at reconciliation. 3.8. Aggrieved, the appellant-wife has preferred these appeals.
We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and the respondent appearing in person.
Before this Court, the appellant-wife has confined her claim to seeking an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs only) towards the marriage expenses of their daughter.
The appellant-wife submits that the respondent-husband earns from running an aquarium shop, rental income from his properties, and contributions from his father. The respondent denies these claims and states that he has no earnings whatsoever.
It is evident that the marital relationship between the parties has ceased to exist in substance. Even an attempt at mediation before us proved unsuccessful. Since the appeals are pressed only to the limited extent of payment of a certain amount, and in view of the long separation and irretrievable breakdown of the marriage, we find no reason to interfere with the decree of divorce granted by the Family Court and affirmed by the High Court.
As regards the issue of contribution for the daughter’s marriage, the parties have taken conflicting stands on the respondent’s income. Nevertheless, on our consideration of the record and submissions, we are satisfied that the respondent is capable of making provision for his daughter’s marriage.
It is clear that the litigation between the parties has been prolonged and acrimonious. Yet, the appellant-wife has been reasonable in limiting her claim before us. She has raised and supported both children largely on her own. It is a father’s duty to provide for his children, and meeting the marriage expenses of his daughter is a modest obligation. We are of the considered view that the respondent can and should contribute Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs only) for this purpose as meeting the reasonable expenses of his daughter’s marriage is a natural extension of his duty as a parent, irrespective of differences with the spouse.
Accordingly, the respondent-husband is directed to pay an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs only) to the appellant-wife towards the marriage expenses of their daughter on or before 15th October 2025. In case of default, the Registry shall revive these appeals for further consideration and appropriate orders.
The appellant-wife shall provide her bank account details to the respondent-husband to facilitate payment.
The decree of divorce granted by the Trial Court and affirmed by the High Court stands affirmed subject to the direction contained in paragraph 10 above.
In view of the above directions, the appeals stand disposed of.
Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. …………………………………..J. [VIKRAM NATH] …………………………………..J. [SANDEEP MEHTA] NEW DELHI; SEPTEMBER 12, 2025
Whether continuous acts of ill-treatment, harassment and defamation would lead to a charge of abetment under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, if the person at the receiving end commits suicide?
2025 INSC 990 · Supreme Court of India
MAMTA DEVI & ORS v. THE RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED & ANR
2023 INSC 566 · Supreme Court of India
PEETHAMBARAN v. STATE OF KERALA & ANR
2023 INSC 481 · Supreme Court of India
The Supreme Court decides something every day. Read one a day.
A free account gets you the day's judgments in your practice areas, a reading streak, and folders to keep what matters.
Start reading freeHeadnote and questions prepared by the LexStreak Editorial Desk · Report an error · Privacy