Twenty Years Apart: Supreme Court Dissolves Teachers' Marriage Under Article 142, Fixes ₹20 Lakh

Case at a Glance

A husband's petition for divorce on cruelty and desertion was dismissed by the trial court in 2012, and the Punjab and Haryana High Court upheld the dismissal in 2014. By the time his appeal was heard, the couple had lived apart for about twenty years. The Supreme Court held that reconciliation was impossible and dissolved the marriage under Article 142. It raised the husband's offer of ₹15 lakh to ₹20 lakh as full and final settlement and closed all other proceedings.

 

Background

The parties married on 22 June 2003 at Morinda, District Ropar, Punjab, and have no children. Both are government school teachers. In October 2004 they moved to Ropar on the husband's posting. In February 2005 the husband had an accident; he alleged that the wife did not care for him and sought his signatures under duress, and he filed an injunction suit that was later withdrawn on compromise. In November 2005 the wife left the matrimonial home and did not return.

The husband's petition for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 was dismissed as withdrawn on 13 October 2007. On 14 December 2009 he filed HMA No. 92 of 2009 under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking divorce for cruelty and desertion. The trial court dismissed it on 14 August 2012, and the High Court dismissed his appeal (FAO No. M-246 of 2012) on 28 February 2014.

The Question Before the Court

Should a marriage marked by about twenty years of separation be dissolved under Article 142, and on what financial terms?

When the Bond Serves No Purpose

The wife argued that the husband had made no sincere effort at reconciliation and denied his allegations of cruelty. The Court did not decide those allegations. It noted that the parties had lived apart for about twenty years, that the strain in the marriage was evident, and that referral to the Supreme Court Mediation Centre had not produced a settlement. In its view, reconciliation appeared impossible and continuing the marital bond would serve no purpose, making this a fit case for Article 142.

On money, the Court noted that both parties are government-employed teachers in Punjab. The husband offered ₹15 lakh; the Court held ₹20 lakh to be just and reasonable as a one-time settlement. It made the dissolution subject to payment within two months, with the decree to be drawn up on proof of payment, and closed all pending civil and criminal proceedings between the parties. No precedents are cited.

What the Court Held

• After about twenty years of separation and failed mediation, the marriage was beyond repair.
• The marriage was dissolved under Article 142, subject to payment.
• The husband must pay ₹20 lakh within two months as full and final settlement, including permanent alimony.
• The High Court and trial court orders were set aside, and all pending proceedings between the parties stand closed.

Why It Matters

• Article 142 can provide relief even where cruelty and desertion were never proved.
• Equal employment status does not remove the need for a one-time settlement.
• Linking the decree to proof of payment protects the receiving spouse.

For Litigants / For Counsel

Key Takeaways

• The marriage was dissolved after about 20 years apart.
• No finding was made on cruelty or desertion.
• ₹20 lakh was fixed as full and final settlement.
• All other proceedings between the parties were closed.

FAQs

Conclusion

Two decades after the couple last lived together, the Supreme Court ended a marriage that the lower courts had kept alive for want of proof, with a fair one-time settlement.

Practical takeaway: where proof of fault fails but the marriage is long over, Article 142 may be the realistic path to closure.