Marriage has traditionally been viewed by Indian law as more than just a contract between two individuals. It is recognised as a social institution, one that carries legal rights, responsibilities, and, in many cases, cultural expectations. Because of this, Indian divorce laws have historically required one spouse to prove a specific legal ground before a marriage can be dissolved.

But what happens when a marriage has effectively ended, even if neither spouse can establish cruelty, desertion, or any other statutory ground? Should the law continue to preserve a relationship that exists only on paper?

These questions have become increasingly relevant in recent years. While India has not formally introduced no-fault divorce, the Supreme Court has repeatedly acknowledged that some marriages are beyond repair. Through its extraordinary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, the Court has dissolved marriages that had broken down completely, even where the existing statutory framework offered limited relief.

These judicial developments have sparked an important conversation. Is India gradually moving towards recognising irretrievable breakdown of marriage as a standalone ground for divorce?

Understanding No-Fault Divorce

A no-fault divorce allows spouses to end their marriage without having to prove that one party was responsible for its failure. Instead of assigning blame, the focus is simply on whether the marriage has irreversibly broken down.

Many countries have adopted some form of no-fault divorce because prolonged attempts to determine fault often increase hostility and make settlements more difficult.

India, however, continues to follow a fault-based system under most personal laws.

For example, under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, divorce may be granted on grounds such as:

• Cruelty
• Desertion
• Adultery
• Conversion
• Mental disorder
• Certain communicable diseases (subject to legislative changes)
• Renunciation
• Presumption of death

Couples may also seek divorce by mutual consent, provided they satisfy the statutory requirements.

Noticeably absent from the legislation is irretrievable breakdown of marriage.

What Does “Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage” Mean?

The phrase refers to a situation where a marriage has reached a point where reconciliation is no longer realistically possible. Emotional bonds have disappeared, communication has broken down, and the parties have often lived separately for several years.

In such cases, continuing the marriage may serve little practical purpose.

Courts frequently encounter situations where spouses have spent years fighting multiple legal proceedings while having no genuine intention of living together again. Yet, unless they satisfy one of the statutory grounds or mutually agree to divorce, ending the marriage may remain legally difficult.

This gap between social reality and statutory law has prompted increasing judicial discussion.

The Supreme Court’s Evolving Approach

Although irretrievable breakdown is not a statutory ground for divorce, the Supreme Court has, over time, recognised that forcing parties to remain married in certain situations may only prolong their suffering.

One of the earliest significant observations came in Naveen Kohli v. Neelu Kohli (2006), where the Court noted that the marriage had become practically unworkable and recommended that Parliament consider introducing irretrievable breakdown as a recognised ground for divorce.

That recommendation did not immediately translate into legislative reform, but judicial thinking continued to evolve.

In R. Srinivas Kumar v. R. Shametha (2019), the Court observed that when parties have lived apart for a prolonged period and reconciliation is no longer possible, continuing the marriage may only extend emotional hardship.

The most significant development came in Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan (2023). A Constitution Bench clarified that the Supreme Court may exercise its powers under Article 142 to dissolve a marriage on the ground of irretrievable breakdown in appropriate cases, even where the statutory requirements for divorce may not be fully satisfied.

Importantly, the Court also emphasised that this extraordinary power must be exercised cautiously and only after considering factors such as:

• The duration of separation
• The possibility of genuine reconciliation
• The interests of both spouses
• The welfare of children, where applicable
• Whether continuing the marriage would only prolong injustice

The decision did not create a new statutory ground for divorce. Instead, it clarified when the Supreme Court may exercise its constitutional powers to achieve complete justice.

Article 142: A Powerful but Limited Remedy

Article 142 allows the Supreme Court to pass orders necessary to do “complete justice” in matters before it.

This constitutional power is unique.

However, it is equally important to understand its limitations.

High Courts and Family Courts cannot ordinarily dissolve marriages solely because they have irretrievably broken down. They remain bound by the grounds specifically provided under the applicable matrimonial statutes.

This means that while the Supreme Court can, in exceptional cases, dissolve a dead marriage using Article 142, most litigants must still pursue divorce through the statutory framework.

As a result, Article 142 provides relief only in a relatively small number of cases. It is not a substitute for legislative reform.

Litigation Fatigue and Dead Marriages

One of the strongest arguments in favour of recognising irretrievable breakdown is the reality of prolonged matrimonial litigation.

Many divorce disputes continue for years, sometimes even decades.

During this period, spouses may face multiple proceedings involving divorce, maintenance, domestic violence allegations, child custody, or property disputes. The emotional and financial burden often becomes overwhelming.

In some cases, both parties have clearly moved on with their lives, yet remain legally married because the statutory requirements have not been met or one spouse refuses to consent to divorce.

This creates what courts often describe as a “dead marriage”, one that survives only in legal records while the relationship itself has ceased to exist.

The Supreme Court has increasingly recognised that prolonging such litigation rarely benefits either party and may instead deepen conflict.

Why Reform Remains a Complex Issue

Despite growing judicial recognition, introducing no-fault divorce is not without challenges.

Supporters argue that the law should acknowledge the reality that some marriages simply cannot be repaired. Requiring spouses to prove fault often encourages unnecessary allegations and adversarial litigation.

Others, however, caution that any reform must adequately protect financially dependent spouses and children. Concerns have also been raised that a purely no-fault system could, in some situations, disadvantage vulnerable partners if appropriate safeguards are not built into the law.

Any legislative change would therefore need to carefully balance personal autonomy with fairness, financial security, and social welfare.

Is India Moving Towards No-Fault Divorce?

The answer is both yes and no.

From a judicial perspective, the trend is unmistakable. The Supreme Court has increasingly acknowledged that compelling parties to remain in marriages that have irretrievably failed may not always serve the interests of justice.

At the same time, the statutory position has not changed.

Irretrievable breakdown of marriage is still not an independent ground for divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act or most other personal laws. Except in limited situations where the Supreme Court exercises its powers under Article 142, litigants must continue to rely on the grounds prescribed by legislation.

This reflects an interesting phase in the development of Indian family law. Judicial thinking appears to be moving ahead of legislative reform, while Parliament has yet to formally incorporate irretrievable breakdown into the statutory framework.

Conclusion

The conversation around no-fault divorce is no longer limited to academic debate. It has become part of the Supreme Court’s evolving approach to matrimonial disputes.

Although Article 142 has enabled relief in exceptional cases involving marriages that have clearly broken down beyond repair, it remains an extraordinary constitutional power rather than a general legal remedy. For most individuals, the existing statutory grounds for divorce continue to govern matrimonial proceedings.

Whether Parliament eventually recognises irretrievable breakdown of marriage as an independent ground for divorce remains to be seen. Until then, the judiciary will likely continue balancing legal principles with the practical realities of marriages that have long since ceased to function.