Nayan Bhowmick v. Aparna Chakraborty (Supreme Court of India, Judgment dated 15 December 2025)
Introduction: A Marriage That Lived Only in Files, Not in Life
Indian matrimonial law has long struggled with a difficult question: Should the law compel two people to remain married when the relationship has died in every practical sense?
The Supreme Court’s decision in Nayan Bhowmick v. Aparna Chakraborty answers this question with quiet clarity. The Court acknowledged a reality that family courts encounter daily—marriages that continue only on paper, sustained not by companionship or hope, but by procedural hurdles and endless litigation.
In dissolving such a marriage, the Court reinforced an evolving judicial philosophy: the law must not preserve legal fictions at the cost of human dignity.
Case Snapshot (Headnote)
In Nayan Bhowmick v. Aparna Chakraborty (judgment uploaded on 15 December 2025), the Supreme Court dissolved a marriage marked by nearly two decades of separation and prolonged adversarial litigation.
Holding that the relationship had irretrievably broken down and survived only as a legal formality, the Court ruled that compelling the parties to remain married would amount to cruelty.
Exercising its extraordinary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, the Court granted a decree of divorce, emphasising that continuation of a dead marriage serves neither individual justice nor societal interest.
Factual Background: Two Lives, Separate for Decades
The parties were married around the year 2000. Within a few years, the relationship deteriorated, leading to separation that eventually stretched across nearly twenty years.
During This Period
- The spouses lived completely apart with no cohabitation.
- Multiple rounds of matrimonial litigation ensued.
- Efforts at reconciliation failed repeatedly.
- The emotional distance hardened into permanent estrangement.
A trial court, appreciating the ground realities, granted a decree of divorce. However, the Gauhati High Court (Shillong Bench) reversed this decision, effectively restoring the marriage in law—despite its complete absence in life.
Aggrieved, the husband approached the Supreme Court.
Decision of the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the High Court’s judgment. Recognising that the marriage had long ceased to function in any meaningful sense, the Court invoked Article 142 to dissolve the marriage on the basis of:
- Irretrievable breakdown of marriage, and
- Mutual cruelty arising from prolonged separation and litigation.
Core Legal Reasoning: Why the Court Refused to Preserve a Legal Fiction
1. Long Separation Is Not Neutral — It Is Destructive
The Court observed that decades of separation combined with hostile litigation leave no room for revival. When spouses have not lived together for years and have no intention or capacity to reconcile, the marriage is already over in substance.
The law, the Court noted, must acknowledge social reality rather than deny it.
2. Forced Continuation Equals Cruelty — Even Without Traditional Fault
A significant aspect of the judgment is its understanding of cruelty. The Court moved away from a narrow, blame-centric approach and held that:
- Compelling unwilling spouses to remain married,
- Despite long separation and emotional deadness,
- Causes mental cruelty to both parties.
Cruelty here was not about isolated acts, but about the cumulative effect of time, hostility, and futility.
3. Article 142: An Exceptional Power for Exceptional Hardship
Acknowledging that irretrievable breakdown is not yet a statutory ground under the Hindu Marriage Act, the Court relied on its constitutional authority under Article 142 to “do complete justice.”
The Court reiterated that:
- Article 142 is not a substitute for legislation.
- Its use must remain fact-specific and rare.
- It is justified where procedural law traps parties in endless suffering.
In this case, the extraordinary duration of separation and litigation made it an appropriate instance.
Key Precedents That Shaped the Ruling
| Case Name | Core Contribution to the Doctrine |
|---|---|
| Shri Rakesh Raman v. Smt. Kavita (2023) | The Court described a 25-year separation as creating a marriage that existed “only on paper.” Continuation, it held, amounted to cruelty. This case provided the most direct doctrinal support for the present ruling. |
| Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan (2023, Constitution Bench) | This landmark decision clarified that the Supreme Court can directly dissolve marriages under Article 142, waive cooling-off periods, and grant complete relief—subject to safeguards. It laid the constitutional foundation for Nayan Bhowmick. |
| Naveen Kohli v. Neelu Kohli (2006) | An early and influential recognition that courts should not attempt to resurrect marriages that are “dead for all practical purposes.” |
| Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh (2007) | Expanded the understanding of mental cruelty and acknowledged long separation as a relevant indicator of breakdown. |
Together, these cases mark a steady judicial shift toward realism over ritualism in matrimonial law.
Practical Impact on Family Law Practice
For Litigants
- Prolonged resistance and tactical delay may weaken, not strengthen, one’s case.
- Courts increasingly view decades of separation as evidence of breakdown, not perseverance.
For Lawyers
- Pleadings must focus on objective indicators: duration of separation, litigation history, failed mediation, and absence of cohabitation.
- Fault-based narratives alone may be insufficient in long-dead marriages.
For the System
- The judgment may encourage earlier settlements.
- It signals judicial fatigue with marriages maintained only through procedural inertia.
Social and Policy Significance
The Court’s language reflects a broader concern: the law should not trap individuals in relationships that no longer exist. By framing dissolution as being in the interest of both parties and society, the judgment recognises that:
- Dead marriages burden courts,
- Prolong suffering,
- And distort the true purpose of matrimonial law—human welfare.
A Brief Critical Reflection
While Article 142 offers compassionate relief, its frequent invocation underscores a legislative gap. Many jurists continue to argue that irretrievable breakdown should be formally introduced as a statutory ground for divorce, ensuring uniformity and reducing reliance on constitutional discretion.
Until such reform occurs, Supreme Court interventions like Nayan Bhowmick remain necessary—but exceptional—correctives.
Conclusion: Law Must Reflect Life
Nayan Bhowmick v. Aparna Chakraborty reinforces a simple but powerful truth: marriage is a lived relationship, not merely a legal status. When it survives only in court records and case numbers, the law must have the courage to let it end.
One-Line Takeaway
When a marriage has died in reality and survives only through paperwork and prolonged litigation, Indian courts—guided by Rakesh Raman, Shilpa Sailesh, and now Nayan Bhowmick—will not hesitate to dissolve that legal fiction, even by invoking Article 142 in truly exceptional cases.
