Legal Review and Analysis of Nayan Bhowmick vs Aparna Chakraborty 2025 INSC 1436
Case Synopsis
Nayan Bhowmick vs. Aparna Chakraborty (2025 INSC 1436)
Synopsis: Supreme Court Wields Article 142 to Sever 24-Year Marital Deadlock; Holds Prolonged Estrangement Itself Constitutes Cruelty, Prioritizing Realistic Justice Over Fault-Based Litigation.
1. Heading of the Judgment
Case Title: Nayan Bhowmick versus Aparna Chakraborty
Citation: 2025 INSC 1436 (Reportable)
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Justice Manmohan and Justice Joymalya Bagchi
Civil Appeal No.: 5167 of 2012
Date of Judgment: December 15, 2025
2. Related Laws and Sections
The judgment engages with matrimonial law and the Supreme Court's extraordinary constitutional power:
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955: Specifically, Section 13(1)(i-a) (cruelty) and Section 13(1)(i-b) (desertion) which are the statutory grounds for divorce.
Constitution of India, Article 142(1): Empowers the Supreme Court to pass any decree or order necessary for doing "complete justice" in any cause or matter pending before it. This was the primary power invoked to dissolve the marriage.
Key Precedents Applied:
Shilpa Sailesh vs. Varun Sreenivasan (2023) 14 SCC 231: A Constitution Bench judgment that clarified the power under Article 142 is not fettered by the fault theory in divorce cases and can be used to dissolve a marriage on the ground of irretrievable breakdown.
Naveen Kohli v. Neelu Kohli (2006) 4 SCC 558 & Samar Ghosh vs. Jaya Ghosh (2007) 4 SCC 511: Established that a long period of separation can lead to the inference of mental cruelty and irretrievable breakdown.
Rakesh Raman vs. Kavita (2023) 17 SCC 433: Held that living separately for a very long period (25 years) spells cruelty to both parties.
Savitri Pandey vs. Prem Chandra Pandey (2002) 2 SCC 73: Cited by the respondent but was read down in the context of Article 142 powers.
3. Judgment Details
A. Facts of the Case
The appellant-husband and respondent-wife, both Development Officers with LIC, married in August 2000. The wife left the matrimonial home in November 2001, alleging pressure from the husband and his family to quit her job. The husband filed for divorce on the ground of desertion under Section 13(1)(i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act in 2007. The Trial Court granted the divorce decree in 2010, but the Gauhati High Court reversed it in 2011, holding that the husband failed to prove the wife's intent to desert permanently and that her leaving was for a reasonable cause. The husband then appealed to the Supreme Court.
B. Issues Before the Court
Whether the husband successfully proved the ground of desertion under Section 13(1)(i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955?
Whether, in the alternative and regardless of proven fault, the marriage has irretrievably broken down, justifying the exercise of the Supreme Court's plenary power under Article 142 of the Constitution to dissolve it?
C. Ratio Decidendi (Court's Reasoning)
The Supreme Court allowed the husband's appeal and dissolved the marriage, providing a multi-faceted reasoning:
On Desertion: The Court did not overturn the High Court's finding that the husband failed to conclusively prove the wife's animus deserendi (intention to desert). It noted the husband's rushed litigation and the wife's reasonable cause for leaving (pressure to resign).
On Long Separation as Cruelty: The Court focused on the admitted fact that the parties had lived separately for 24 years since 2001, with no cohabitation and no children. Citing Rakesh Raman, it held that such an extraordinarily long period of separation, with no hope of reconciliation (failed mediation in 2012), is itself a source of mental cruelty to both spouses.
On Mutual Incompatibility: The Court observed that both spouses held "strongly held views" and refused to accommodate each other for decades. This mutual unwillingness and the resulting deadlock in their relationship were deemed to amount to cruelty inflicted on each other.
On Irretrievable Breakdown and Article 142: The core of the judgment is the application of the Constitution Bench ruling in Shilpa Sailesh. The Court held that the traditional "fault theory" (apportioning blame for desertion or cruelty) is not an impediment when exercising power under Article 142. When a marriage is "dead" and "wrecked beyond salvage," with no possibility of rapprochement, public interest lies in legally recognizing its end. The Court found the marriage had irretrievably broken down and continuing the legal tie would only perpetuate misery.
4. Core Principle of the Judgment
Title: Transcending Fault: Article 142 as a Tool for Justice in Moribund Marriages
Main Issue Addressed: The judgment addresses the critical tension between statutory fault-based grounds for divorce and the stark reality of marriages that have been defunct for decades with no chance of revival. It clarifies the Supreme Court's role in such an impasse.
Body and Analysis: The Supreme Court navigated beyond the specific dispute over desertion to address a larger, systemic issue.
From Specific Fault to General Breakdown: The Court effectively shifted the judicial inquiry from "Who is to blame for the separation?" to "What is the current state of this marital relationship?" This refocus acknowledges that in long-separated cases, the original cause of separation becomes less relevant than the present, irreparable rupture.
Sanctity vs. Reality: While acknowledging the principle of preserving marital sanctity, the Court held that forcing two individuals to remain legally bound in a "legal fiction" of a marriage, after 24 years of estrangement, serves no sanctity. It instead causes continuous psychological harm, amounting to cruelty.
Article 142 as a Gap-Filling Justice Mechanism: The judgment authoritatively employs Article 142 as a constitutional remedy for a lacuna in the law. Since the Hindu Marriage Act does not explicitly recognize "irretrievable breakdown" as a standalone ground for divorce (except under specific circumstances in Section 13C, which was not invoked here), the Supreme Court used its extraordinary power to do "complete justice" and dissolve a union that existed only on paper. This action is framed not as bypassing the law, but as fulfilling its higher purpose of preventing injustice.
5. Final Outcome
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal. It set aside the impugned judgment of the Gauhati High Court. In exercise of its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, the Court dissolved the marriage between Nayan Bhowmick and Aparna Chakraborty on the ground of irretrievable breakdown. The operative part of the Trial Court's decree granting divorce was thus upheld, albeit on different grounds.
6.MCQs Based on the Judgment
MCQ 1: In Nayan Bhowmick vs. Aparna Chakraborty, what was the primary legal basis used by the Supreme Court to finally dissolve the marriage?
A) The husband successfully proved the wife's desertion under the Hindu Marriage Act.
B) The wife's admission of cruelty towards the husband.
C) The Supreme Court's constitutional power under Article 142, due to the marriage's irretrievable breakdown after 24 years of separation.
D) Mutual consent of both parties for divorce.
MCQ 2: According to the Supreme Court's reasoning in this judgment, what can an extraordinarily long period of separation between spouses, with no hope of reconciliation, amount to?
A) Constructive condonation of past faults.
B) Evidence of mutual understanding.
C) Mental cruelty to both parties.
D) A mere social formality with no legal consequence.