Supreme Court: Marriage Cannot Be Treated as ‘Irretrievably Broken’ Merely Because Spouses Live Separately

Courts Must First Determine Who Caused the Breakdown — SC Sets Aside Uttarakhand High Court Divorce Order

Authored by: P & P Advocates and Consultants

Introduction

In a significant judgment that re-emphasizes judicial responsibility in matrimonial disputes, the Supreme Court of India has held that courts cannot dissolve a marriage merely because the spouses are living separately. Before concluding that a marriage has “irretrievably broken down,” the Court must thoroughly examine who is responsible for the separation, and whether the separation was forced, justified, or voluntary.

This judgment was delivered in Dr. Anita v. Indresh Gopal Kohli, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1143, by a Bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi. The Supreme Court set aside an order of the Uttarakhand High Court which had granted divorce simply on the basis of prolonged separation. 

Background of the Case

The parties had been living separately for several years. The husband approached the courts seeking divorce, alleging cruelty. The trial court rejected his divorce petition, noting that the wife had been forced out of the matrimonial home and was not living separately by choice.

However, the Uttarakhand High Court reversed the trial court’s order, granted divorce, and held that the marriage had irretrievably broken down solely because the parties had been living apart.

The wife appealed to the Supreme Court.

Supreme Court’s Key Observations

The Supreme Court strongly criticized the High Court’s approach and issued important clarifications:

1. Living Separately ≠ Irretrievable Breakdown

The Court cautioned lower courts that living separately is not enough to presume the marriage has ended. Before reaching such a conclusion, judges must:

Examine why the couple is living apart

Identify who caused the breakdown of the relationship

Look for evidence of willful desertion

Assess the conduct of both spouses

2. Need for Detailed Judicial Scrutiny

The Court held that judges must conduct a deep analysis of evidence, social conditions, and family circumstances, especially when minor children are involved. Reaching a premature conclusion of "irretrievable breakdown" can have devastating consequences.

3. High Court Failed to Consider Crucial Issues

The Supreme Court noted that the High Court had ignored important questions:

Was the wife thrown out of the matrimonial home or did she leave voluntarily?

Does withdrawal of the earlier divorce petition bar a second one on the same grounds?

Did the husband commit cruelty by refusing cohabitation and denying maintenance, affection, and care to their child?

By overlooking these questions, the High Court committed a serious error of law.

The Supreme Court’s Decision

The Supreme Court:

Set aside the Uttarakhand High Court’s order granting divorce

Restored the trial court’s reasoned findings

Reaffirmed that irretrievable breakdown is not a statutory ground under the Hindu Marriage Act, and cannot be applied without full factual analysis

The Court reiterated that only the Supreme Court, using its extraordinary powers under Article 142, can dissolve a marriage on the ground of irretrievable breakdown — and even then, only after careful examination. 

Why This Judgment Matters

This ruling is a crucial reminder for Family Courts and High Courts that divorce cannot be granted mechanically.

It strengthens protections for spouses especially women who may be forced out of their marital homes and later blamed for “desertion.”

Key implications:

Courts must not shortcut matrimonial trials

Allegations of cruelty and desertion need clear proof

Separation alone cannot justify dissolution of marriage

The responsibility for breakdown must be clearly and factually determined

Conclusion

The Dr. Anita v. Indresh Gopal Kohli judgment reinforces that marriage cannot be dissolved casually or without rigorous legal analysis. The Supreme Court has reminded courts that their role is not merely to observe separation but to determine the truth behind it.

For individuals facing matrimonial disputes, this ruling provides a strong safeguard against unjust divorce orders based solely on prolonged separation.