Supreme Court on Monday finally brought down the curtain on a marriage that had existed more on paper than in real life. A couple from Shillong, married in 2000 and separated since 2001, walked away legally free after nearly two and a half decades of litigation. The bench invoked its extraordinary powers to do what it said ordinary law could not-end a dead relationship.
Background
The case involved Nayan Bhowmick and Aparna Chakraborty, both Development Officers with the Life Insurance Corporation of India. They married in August 2000, having known each other professionally for years. Trouble, however, began early.
The wife alleged pressure from her husband and in-laws to quit her job, despite her responsibility towards her ageing mother and other dependents. She left the matrimonial home in November 2001.
In 2003, the husband filed for divorce on the ground of desertion. That attempt failed as premature. A fresh divorce petition in 2007 succeeded before the trial court in Shillong, which dissolved the marriage in 2010.
But the Gauhati High Court (Shillong Bench) reversed that decree in 2011, holding that the wife had not deserted her husband with the intention to permanently abandon the marriage. The High Court even remarked that the husband appeared to be “trying to take advantage of his own wrong”.
Aggrieved, the husband approached the Supreme Court.
Court’s Observations
The Supreme Court took a wider view of the dispute, stepping back from the narrow question of desertion. The bench noted that the parties had been living separately for 24 years, with no children from the marriage and no reconciliation despite mediation attempts.
“The admitted position is that matrimonial litigation between the parties has continued for over twenty-two years,” the bench observed, adding that such prolonged separation itself causes cruelty to both sides.
The judges also remarked that courts should not act as referees deciding which spouse’s worldview is correct. “Their strongly held views and refusal to accommodate each other,” the bench said, “amounts to cruelty to one another.”
Importantly, the Court relied on earlier rulings to underline that forcing parties to remain tied to a completely broken marriage serves no purpose. Quoting past precedents, the bench observed that an unworkable marriage becomes a source of “misery, torment and mental cruelty”.
Rejecting the argument that irretrievable breakdown cannot be used where one party opposes divorce, the Court clarified that its power under Article 142 of the Constitution is not restricted by fault-based rules. As the bench put it, “No spouse can be compelled to resume life with a consort when the marriage has, in fact, ceased to exist.”
Decision
Concluding that “there is no sanctity left in the marriage and rapprochement is not in the realm of possibility,” the Supreme Court dissolved the marriage by exercising its powers under Article 142.
The bench set aside the Gauhati High Court’s 2011 judgment and restored the trial court’s divorce decree. With that, the appeal was allowed, finally ending a marriage that had survived only in court files for more than two decades.
Case Title: Nayan Bhowmick vs. Aparna Chakraborty
Case No.: Civil Appeal No. 5167 of 2012
Case Type: Matrimonial Appeal (Divorce under Hindu Marriage Act)
Decision Date: December 15, 2025