Supreme Court Grants Divorce After 24 Years, Says Mutual Refusal to Compromise is Cruelty

A couple’s 24-year separation has ended in divorce. The Supreme Court of India made the ruling. The case involved a husband and wife who worked for the same company.They lived apart after the wife refused to quit her job. The court stated mutual resentment can itself be a form of cruelty. This landmark decision highlights changing views on marital roles.

Case Details and Prolonged Legal Battle

The couple married in Shillong in the year 2000. Both were employees of the Life Insurance Corporation. Disagreements began within their first year.The husband’s family wanted the wife to leave her job. She wished to continue working to support her sick mother. Due to this pressure, she left the matrimonial home in 2001.The husband first sought divorce in 2003. His petition was dismissed for being filed too early. He filed again in 2007, alleging desertion.A trial court granted the divorce in 2010. The Gauhati High Court overturned this ruling in 2011. The husband then appealed to the Supreme Court in 2012.

Court’s Rationale on Marital Breakdown

The Supreme Court bench noted the couple lived apart for over two decades. They worked in the same office but had no interaction. All attempts at mediation had failed completely.The judges, as reported by Bar and Bench, made a key observation. They said it is not for society or courts to decide which spouse’s view is correct. The problem was their rigid, opposing positions.The refusal to accommodate each other was deemed cruelty to both. The court concluded the marriage had lost all sanctity. Prolonging the litigation only added to their emotional suffering.This ruling utilizes the court’s constitutional powers. It acknowledges that a marriage can be irretrievably broken. The fault-based system under the Hindu Marriage Act was not seen as a barrier in this extreme case.

Amritsar Husband Tracks Wife Using GPS, Alleges Hotel Infidelity

The Supreme Court’s decision formally ends a union that functionally ceased 24 years ago, setting a significant precedent that mutual incompatibility and prolonged separation can legally define cruelty in a broken marriage.

Thought you’d like to know

What was the main reason for the divorce?

The central issue was the wife’s refusal to quit her job after marriage. This led to immediate family pressure and conflict. The couple separated within a year and never reconciled.

How long were they separated before the final ruling?

The husband and wife had been living apart for 24 years. They separated in 2001 and the Supreme Court’s final decree came in 2025. The legal battle itself lasted nearly two decades.

What did the court mean by “mutual cruelty”?

The court stated that when spouses hold strongly opposing views and refuse to compromise, their conduct becomes cruel to each other. It is the irreconcilable difference and resentment itself that constitutes cruelty in such a broken-down marriage.

Did the couple have any children?

No. The Supreme Court noted the couple had no children. This fact was considered as part of the overall context of their completely fractured relationship.

Why did the Supreme Court overrule the High Court?

The High Court had focused on which spouse was at fault initially. The Supreme Court took a broader view, emphasizing the 24-year separation and total breakdown of the marriage as the decisive factors for granting divorce.

What happens after this divorce is granted?

The divorce decree legally dissolves the marriage. Both parties are free to remarry if they choose. The ruling brings a formal end to a relationship that had been effectively over for decades.