Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan
“Irretrievable Breakdown: When Courts Can End Dead Marriages”
TL;DR
A five-Judge Constitution Bench held that the Supreme Court can directly grant divorce on grounds of "irretrievable breakdown of marriage" using Article 142, even if the other spouse opposes. The Court can also waive the 6-month cooling-off period for mutual consent divorces and quash related criminal proceedings (Section 498A, Domestic Violence, etc.) based on settlement.
The Bottom Line
If your marriage has irretrievably broken down and reconciliation is impossible, the Supreme Court can grant you divorce even without mutual consent, using its powers under Article 142. The 6-month waiting period for mutual consent divorce can also be waived.
Case Timeline
The journey from FIR to Supreme Court verdict
Marriage
Shilpa and Varun got married in Mumbai according to Hindu rites
Marriage
Shilpa and Varun got married in Mumbai according to Hindu rites
Divorce Petition Filed
Varun filed for divorce on grounds of cruelty in Thiruvananthapuram Family Court
Divorce Petition Filed
Varun filed for divorce on grounds of cruelty in Thiruvananthapuram Family Court
Approached Supreme Court
Both parties jointly approached Supreme Court seeking divorce on grounds of irretrievable breakdown
Approached Supreme Court
Both parties jointly approached Supreme Court seeking divorce on grounds of irretrievable breakdown
Reference to Constitution Bench
Two-judge bench referred the matter to a larger bench
Reference to Constitution Bench
Two-judge bench referred the matter to a larger bench
Constitution Bench Judgment
Five-judge bench ruled that Supreme Court can grant divorce for irretrievable breakdown under Article 142
Constitution Bench Judgment
Five-judge bench ruled that Supreme Court can grant divorce for irretrievable breakdown under Article 142
The Story
Shilpa Sailesh and Varun Sreenivasan got married in 2007 in Mumbai according to Hindu rites and customs. After marriage, they shifted to Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala, where Varun was employed.
Differences arose between them, and in 2010, Varun filed a divorce petition before the Family Court in Thiruvananthapuram on grounds of cruelty. The case dragged on for years with no resolution in sight.
In 2014, both parties approached the Supreme Court jointly, seeking divorce on the ground that their marriage was "irretrievably damaged." However, "irretrievable breakdown of marriage" is not a statutory ground for divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
A two-judge bench of the Supreme Court was of the view that this issue required consideration by a larger bench. In June 2016, the case was referred to a Constitution Bench to decide whether the Supreme Court has the power under Article 142 to grant divorce on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage.
The Constitution Bench clubbed several similar matters where spouses were seeking divorce based on complete breakdown of marriage, even when statutory grounds were absent or contested.
Legal Issues
Click each question to reveal the Supreme Court's answer
Arguments
The battle of arguments before the Supreme Court
Petitioner
Vihaan Kumar
Marriage is dead beyond revival
The parties have been fighting for over 13 years. There is no possibility of reconciliation, and forcing them to continue in this legal battle serves no purpose.
Article 142 empowers complete justice
The Supreme Court's power to do "complete justice" under Article 142 should include the power to dissolve marriages that have irretrievably broken down.
Right to live with dignity
Forcing parties to remain in a dead marriage violates their right to live with dignity under Article 21.
Respondent
State of Haryana
No statutory ground for irretrievable breakdown
The Hindu Marriage Act provides specific grounds for divorce. "Irretrievable breakdown" is not one of them. Courts cannot create new grounds.
Parliament has not enacted it
Although Law Commission recommended adding irretrievable breakdown as a ground, Parliament has not enacted it. Courts should not assume legislative function.
Court's Analysis
How the Court reasoned its decision
The Constitution Bench undertook a comprehensive examination of the scope of Article 142 and its relationship with matrimonial laws. The Court recognized that while irretrievable breakdown is not a statutory ground, the Supreme Court's power to do "complete justice" enables it to grant divorce in cases where marriage has become a shell and continuing it would cause more harm than good.
The Supreme Court under Article 142(1) is empowered to dissolve the marriage on the ground of Irretrievable Breakdown, and to do "complete justice" it can do so even when the other spouse does not consent to the same.
Establishes that divorce can be granted even without mutual consent if marriage has broken down.
The marriage would be treated as a social institution in the larger interest of public at large. However, the parties to such a marriage are not to be sacrificed at the altar of the institution.
Balances institutional sanctity with individual welfare.
To force the parties to live in an unworkable marriage will adversely affect their mental and physical health and will not serve any purpose.
Recognizes the harm caused by forcing continuation of dead marriages.
Courts must consider: period of cohabitation after marriage, attempts at reconciliation, period of separation (six years or more is relevant), and whether genuine settlement addresses alimony, child custody, and other issues.
Provides guidelines for exercise of Article 142 powers in divorce cases.
The Verdict
Relief Granted
The judgment provides relief to couples trapped in dead marriages, enabling them to move on with their lives even when statutory grounds for divorce are absent or contested.
Directions Issued
- Supreme Court can dissolve marriages on ground of irretrievable breakdown using Article 142 powers
- Divorce can be granted even when one spouse opposes, if marriage is dead beyond repair
- The 6-month cooling-off period under Section 13B(2) can be waived in appropriate cases
- Related criminal proceedings (Section 498A, DV Act, Section 125) can be quashed as part of settlement
- Courts should consider period of cohabitation, reconciliation attempts, separation period, and comprehensive settlement while deciding
Key Legal Principles Established
The Supreme Court has power under Article 142 to grant divorce on ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage.
This power can be exercised even when one spouse opposes the divorce.
The 6-month cooling-off period for mutual consent divorce can be waived when appropriate.
Related criminal proceedings can be quashed as part of comprehensive settlement.
Courts should consider: (a) period of cohabitation, (b) reconciliation attempts, (c) separation period (6+ years is significant), (d) comprehensive settlement covering alimony and child custody.
Marriage is a social institution, but individuals should not be sacrificed at its altar.
Forcing parties to remain in dead marriages violates their dignity and well-being.
Key Takeaways
What different people should know from this case
- If your marriage has completely broken down, you can approach the Supreme Court for divorce even if normal grounds are not available.
- You don't need mutual consent—the Supreme Court can grant divorce even if your spouse opposes.
- The 6-month waiting period for mutual consent divorce can be waived if you've already been separated for a long time.
- Criminal cases filed during marital disputes can be settled and quashed as part of the divorce settlement.
- Courts will consider how long you lived together, how long you've been separated, and whether reconciliation was attempted.
Legal Framework
Applicable laws and provisions
Constitutional Provisions
Article 142(1)
Constitution of India
“The Supreme Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree or make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it.”
Relevance: Core provision enabling Supreme Court to grant divorce on ground of irretrievable breakdown.
Article 21
Constitution of India
“No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.”
Relevance: Right to live with dignity—forcing continuation of dead marriage violates this right.
Statutory Provisions
Section 13
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
“Lists grounds for divorce including adultery, cruelty, desertion, conversion, mental disorder, venereal disease, renunciation, and presumption of death.”
Relevance: Statutory grounds for divorce—"irretrievable breakdown" is notably absent.
Section 13B
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
“Divorce by mutual consent. Subsection (2) provides for 6-month waiting period after first motion.”
Relevance: The cooling-off period that can now be waived by Supreme Court.
Section 498A
Indian Penal Code, 1860
“Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty shall be punished.”
Relevance: Criminal proceedings that can be quashed as part of divorce settlement.
Related Cases & Precedents
Amardeep Singh v. Harveen Kaur
followed(2017) 8 SCC 746
Held that the 6-month cooling-off period under Section 13B(2) can be waived by the court. This ruling was reaffirmed by the Constitution Bench.
Naveen Kohli v. Neelu Kohli
cited(2006) 4 SCC 558
Recommended that Parliament should add irretrievable breakdown of marriage as a ground for divorce.
R. Sridharan v. R. Padmaja
cited2018 SCC OnLine SC 1302
Earlier case where Supreme Court considered granting divorce on grounds of irretrievable breakdown.
Poonam v. Sumit Tanwar
cited(2010) 4 SCC 460
Discussed the circumstances under which courts can exercise power to grant divorce despite lack of statutory grounds.
Watch & Learn
Video explanations in multiple languages
Frequently Asked Questions
Explore Related Cases
More case summaries on similar legal topics
Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana
2025 INSC 162
The Case That Made Silence During Arrest Unconstitutional
Shajan Skaria v. State of Kerala
2024 INSC 625
When Criticism of a Public Figure Doesn't Become a Caste Atrocity
Omkar Gond v. Union of India
2024 INSC 775
Disability Percentage Cannot Automatically Deny Your Dream of Becoming a Doctor
Just Rights for Children v. S. Harish
2024 INSC 714
Watching Child Pornography is NOT Just "Moral Decay" — It's a Serious Crime
DISCLAIMER: This case summary is for educational and informational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice. For advice on your specific situation, please consult a qualified advocate. JurisOptima is not responsible for any actions taken based on this information.
Facing aSimilar Situation?
Our advocates can help you understand how this judgment applies to your case.