Article 142 Divorce for Irretrievable Breakdown: Supreme Court in Neha Lal v. Abhishek Kumar

Chintan Shah
6 days ago
6 min read

Case Summary

Case name: Neha Lal v. Abhishek Kumar (Transfer Petition (Crl.) No. 338 of 2025)
Date of judgment: 20 January 2026
Bench: Honourable Justice Rajesh Bindal; Honourable Justice Manmohan
Advocates / Representation: Counsel for petitioner (name not specified on record); Respondent appeared in-person
Primary legal provisions: Article 142, Constitution of India; Hindu Marriage Act, 1955; Code of Criminal Procedure (Sections 125, 127, 340 CrPC and related applications); BNSS (new code references: Sections 144, 215, 379 read with BNSS 2023); Indian Penal Code (Sections 498A, 406, 323, 504, 506, 376, 377 as appearing in case file)
Key cited authorities:Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan (2023 INSC 468);Rakesh Raman v. Kavita (2023 INSC 433);Vikas Kanaujia v. Sarita (2024 INSC 517);Prakashchandra Joshi v. Kuntal Prakashchandra Joshi (2024 INSC 55);Vineet Taneja v. Ritu Johari (MA No. 2009 of 2023);Rinku Baheti v. Sandesh Sharda (2024 INSC 1014);Nayan Bhowmick v. Aparna Chakraborty (2025 INSC 1436);Achin Gupta v. State of Haryana (2024 INSC 369);Kusha Duruka v. State of Odisha (2024 INSC 46)

Introduction and Procedural Snapshot

The judgment handed down by a two-Judge Bench comprising Honourable Justice Rajesh Bindal and Honourable Justice Manmohan addresses an application under Article 142 of the Constitution for dissolution of marriage where the parties have been embroiled in protracted, multi-forum litigation.

The petitioner, married on 28 January 2012, left the matrimonial home after approximately 65 days. Both spouses have since instituted numerous civil and criminal proceedings against one another in multiple fora, including Family Courts, District Courts and High Courts.

The core legal question was whether the Supreme Court should exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 142 to dissolve the marriage on the ground of irretrievable breakdown, despite the absence of that specific ground under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

Facts and Immediate Issues

The factual matrix is starkly litigative. There were more than forty proceedings between the parties, separation for over a decade, failed attempts at mediation, and divergent narratives regarding conduct and financial position.

The petitioner did not seek alimony in the Article 142 petition. The respondent resisted dissolution and pressed allegations of perjury and false litigation.

Before exercising its extraordinary power, the Supreme Court directed verification of the parties’ case lists from the Registrars General of the Delhi High Court and the Allahabad High Court to ensure a complete and accurate factual record.

Legal Framework and Precedent

The Bench relied primarily upon the Constitution Bench authority in Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan, which authorises the Court to grant divorce under Article 142 in appropriate cases of complete and irretrievable breakdown of marriage.

The non-exhaustive factors extracted in paragraph 63 of Shilpa Sailesh were treated as guiding criteria, including:

Period of cohabitation
Period of separation
Nature and cumulative impact of allegations
Attempts at reconciliation or mediation
Economic and social status
Child custody and welfare
Provision for fair and adequate alimony

The Court supplemented Shilpa Sailesh with subsequent authorities recognising repeated litigation and failed mediation as indicia of irretrievable breakdown.

Application of Law to Facts

Applying the above criteria, the Bench concluded that the marriage had irretrievably broken down. Cohabitation lasted only about 65 days, separation had continued for more than a decade, mediation efforts had failed, and the parties remained entrenched in acrimony evidenced by serial proceedings.

The absence of children, the petitioner’s statement that she did not seek alimony, and the parties’ educational and economic profiles were considered relevant.

The Court observed that where the formal legal relationship serves only to perpetuate litigation and misery, exercising Article 142 to dissolve the marriage can be:

“necessary to do complete justice.”

Key Holdings and Directions

Exercising its discretion under Article 142, the Supreme Court dissolved the marriage.

The Court directed that all pending cases between the parties, as identified from court records and listed in paragraph 8.8 of the judgment, would stand disposed of without further action.

An important exception was carved out: proceedings raising allegations of perjury, including applications under Section 340 CrPC and corresponding BNSS provisions, were preserved and would continue.

The Court imposed nominal costs of ₹10,000 on each party as a token penalty for persistent litigative behaviour and directed deposit of the amount with the Supreme Court Advocates on Record Association.

Select Quotations from the Judgment

“The period of separation should be sufficiently long, and anything above six years or more will be a relevant factor.”(extracting Shilpa Sailesh, para 63)

“Warring couples cannot be allowed to settle their scores by treating Courts as their battlefield and choke the system.”

“No one can be permitted to pollute the stream of justice.”

Practical Implications for Family Law Practitioners in India

Article 142 as an exceptional remedy: Article 142 remains a viable but exceptional remedy where statutory grounds are inadequate but the marriage is demonstrably wrecked. Courts will closely scrutinise sustained separation, failed reconciliation and cumulative litigation.
Importance of complete case inventories: The Court’s insistence on verification by Registrars General highlights the necessity of accurate and complete disclosure of pending cases. Incomplete charts invite scrutiny and may weaken a party’s case.
Role of mediation: Courts will evaluate whether mediation was genuinely attempted and at what stage. Failure to engage meaningfully with mediation may be noted adversely.
Perjury proceedings survive dissolution: Even where marriage is dissolved, allegations of perjury or fabricated evidence will proceed independently. Advocates must caution clients against false affidavits or manufactured records.
Strategic litigation considerations: Parties invoking Article 142 must be prepared on custody, alimony and ancillary obligations, even where alimony is not claimed. Responding parties should weigh resistance against the costs of prolonged hostility.

Critical Observations

The judgment reflects a pragmatic response to an increasingly common pattern: brief cohabitation followed by prolonged, corrosive litigation. The Court balances the social value of marriage against the need to prevent courts from becoming instruments of perpetual retribution.

As the Bench observed, tolerance, adjustment and mutual respect are foundational. When these are irretrievably lost, judicial intervention may be necessary to bring closure.

Conclusion

Neha Lal v. Abhishek Kumar will serve as an important reference point for the exercise of Article 142 in matrimonial disputes marked by entrenched hostility and multiplicity of proceedings.

The decision underscores the Supreme Court’s willingness to provide finality while preserving criminal accountability for perjury. For legal advisers and litigators, it reinforces the need for rigorous case management, candid client counselling and proactive use of mediation to prevent disputes from degenerating into system-choking litigation.

In the Court’s Words

“That the marriage has irretrievably broken down is to be factually determined and firmly established. For this, several factors are to be considered such as the period of time the parties had cohabited after marriage; when the parties had last cohabited; the nature of allegations made by the parties against each other and their family members; the orders passed in the legal proceedings from time to time, cumulative impact on the personal relationship; whether, and how many attempts were made to settle the disputes by intervention of the court or through mediation, and when the last attempt was made, etc.

The period of separation should be sufficiently long, and anything above six years or more will be a relevant factor. But these facts have to be evaluated keeping in view the economic and social status of the parties, including their educational qualifications, whether the parties have any children, their age, educational qualification, and whether the other spouse and children are dependent, in which event how and in what manner the party seeking divorce intends to take care and provide for the spouse or the children.

Question of custody and welfare of minor children, provision for fair and adequate alimony for the wife, and economic rights of the children and other pending matters, if any, are relevant considerations. We would not like to codify the factors so as to curtail exercise of jurisdiction under Article 142(1) of the Constitution of India, which is situation specific. Some of the factors mentioned can be taken as illustrative, and worthy of consideration.”

“This Court held that such discretionary power can be exercised to do complete justice. Despite opposition by the parties, this Court can dissolve the marriage if there is no possibility of parties living together. Continuation of formal legal relationships in such circumstances would not be justified.”

“Warring couples cannot be allowed to settle their scores by treating Courts as their battlefield and choke the system. If there is no compatibility, there are modes available for early resolution of disputes. Process of mediation is the mode which can be explored at the stage of pre-litigation and even after litigation starts.”