‘No Sanctity Left’: Supreme Court Says Courts Should End ‘Stale And Frozen’ Marriages
‘No Sanctity Left’: Supreme Court Says Courts Should End ‘Stale And Frozen’ Marriages
The Supreme Court has observed that courts should not compel people to remain trapped in marriages that have irretrievably broken down, stressing the need to bring long-pending matrimonial disputes to a meaningful conclusion.
The Supreme Court of India has urged courts to avoid keeping “stale and frozen” marriages alive through prolonged litigation, saying such relationships often lose their purpose and only add to the emotional and psychological distress of those involved.
A bench comprising Justices Sanjay Karol and Augustine George Masih made the observation while hearing a matrimonial dispute involving two government doctors who had been living separately for more than 15 years.
The court noted that although the institution of marriage deserves protection, courts should not force individuals to remain in relationships that have effectively ceased to exist. Emphasising the need for practical and humane solutions, the bench said, “It is in the best interest of parties and the society if ties are severed between parties in cases where litigation has been pending for a considerably long period of time.”
The judges observed that continuing a marriage that has broken down beyond repair only prolongs suffering and prevents individuals from rebuilding their lives. The judgment stated that keeping such relationships alive through years of litigation leads to “escalation of frustration in a dead relationship” and creates “sociological, psychological and mental hollowness in life.”
The dispute involved a husband seeking divorce while the wife challenged the proceedings. The court found that the couple had not lived together for over a decade and a half, and multiple reconciliation attempts had failed.
Examining the evidence, the bench noted there was no indication that either spouse genuinely intended to resume married life. The court also took into account that the couple had no children and that both were financially independent government doctors.
Highlighting the reality of the situation, the court observed, “The parties have lived separately for far too long a period of time and there is no sanctity left in the marriage.”
The judgment referred to several earlier Supreme Court rulings where marriages were dissolved after being found to be “totally unworkable, emotionally dead, beyond salvage and irretrievably broken down.” The bench also relied on the Constitution Bench ruling in Shilpa Sailesh vs Varun Sreenivasan (2023), which recognised that the apex court can invoke its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to grant complete justice in such cases.
Finding that all efforts to reunite the couple had failed, the Supreme Court concluded that the marriage had irretrievably broken down and could not be salvaged. Invoking Article 142, the court dissolved the marriage and dismissed the wife’s appeal.
The judgment underlined that prolonged matrimonial litigation should not continue indefinitely when there is no realistic possibility of reconciliation. According to the court, ending such disputes through effective relief not only benefits the individuals involved but also serves the larger interests of society.
The ruling reinforces the Supreme Court’s view that while marriage is a significant institution, preserving it should not come at the cost of forcing individuals to remain in relationships that have long ceased to function in any meaningful way.
