Summary of the Judgment: Pradeep Bhardwaj vs. Priya

1. Heading of the Judgment

Case Title: Pradeep Bhardwaj vs. Priya
Court: Supreme Court of India
Citation: 2025 INSC 852
Judges: Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, JJ.
Date: July 15, 20252. Related Laws and Sections

The judgment interprets:
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA):
Section 13(1)(a): Divorce on grounds of cruelty.
Section 24 & 26: Maintenance pendente lite and child support.
Indian Penal Code (IPC):
Sections 498A/406/34: Allegations of cruelty and dowry harassment.
Constitution of India:
Article 142: Supreme Court’s power to pass equitable decrees, including divorce on grounds of irretrievable breakdown.

3. Basic Judgment Details

Nature of Dispute: The appellant-husband sought divorce from the respondent-wife on grounds of cruelty and irretrievable breakdown of marriage.
Lower Courts’ Findings:
Family Court (2017) & High Court (2019): Rejected divorce, citing unproven cruelty allegations and refusal to reward the husband for abandoning his family.
Supreme Court’s Ruling:
Granted divorce under Article 142 due to irretrievable breakdown (16-year separation).
Enhanced maintenance to ₹15,000/month for the wife and child.

4. Explanation of the Judgment

A. Factual Background

Marriage & Separation:
Married in 2008, separated by October 2009 (after 1.5 years).
A male child (born 2009) remained with the wife.
Allegations:
Husband’s Claims: Wife abused his mother, had extramarital affairs, and physically assaulted him.
Wife’s Defense: Husband neglected her and the child; filed false dowry case (FIR No. 83/2011).
Legal Proceedings:
2017: Family Court dismissed divorce petition (cruelty unproven).
2019: High Court upheld dismissal, imposed ₹10,000 costs on the husband.
2019: Husband and family acquitted in dowry case.

B. Key Issues & Supreme Court’s Analysis

(i) Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage

Husband’s Argument:
16-year separation with no reconciliation (mediation failed).
Acquittal in dowry case proved wife’s allegations false.
Wife’s Argument:
Concurrent lower court rulings favored her.
Husband denied paternity, evaded responsibilities.
Court’s View:
Cited Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan (2023) – Article 142 allows divorce for broken marriages.
"Dead marriage" perpetuates misery; no societal benefit in forcing union.

(ii) Maintenance Enhancement

Original Order: ₹7,500/month (₹4,500 maintenance + ₹3,000 litigation).
Supreme Court’s Decision:
Enhanced to ₹15,000/month considering:
Wife’s homemaker status.
Child’s upbringing needs.
Husband’s income as a clerk.

(iii) Article 142’s Role

The Court exercised its extraordinary power to dissolve the marriage, prioritizing:
Dignity of both parties.
Child’s welfare (stable future without parental conflict).
Societal interest (avoiding futile litigation).

5. Key Takeaways

Irretrievable Breakdown: Prolonged separation (16+ years) + failed reconciliation = valid ground for divorce under Article 142.
False Allegations: Acquittal in dowry case weakened wife’s resistance to divorce.
Maintenance: Enhanced to reflect inflation and child’s needs.
Precedent: Reinforces Shilpa Sailesh – Courts can dissolve marriages beyond statutory grounds.Simplified Explanation:
The Supreme Court granted divorce due to the complete collapse of the marriage (no love, trust, or cohabitation for 16 years).
The wife’s false dowry case and the husband’s acquittal supported the decision.
Fairness: The wife and child received higher maintenance to ensure financial security.Note: This judgment balances personal liberty (right to exit a broken marriage) with social responsibility (ensuring spouse/child welfare). It sets a precedent for using Article 142 in deadlock cases.