SONAL TALPADAversusVEERBHAN SINGH

                  [2026] 7 S.C.R. 49 : 2026 INSC 620

                               Sonal Talpada
                                     v.
                              Veerbhan Singh
                       (Civil Appeal No. 8391 of 2026)
                                 02 June 2026
           [Sanjay Karol and Augustine George Masih,* JJ.]


                           Issue for Consideration
       Whether the Respondent-husband was subjected to ‘cruelty’
       within the meaning of law and; whether the marital bond between
       the parties has ruptured to such an extent that the marriage has
       broken down irretrievably, rendering any reconciliation impossible
       and thus, deserves to be dissolved in exercise of powers u/Art.142
       of the Constitution of India.

                                  Headnotes†
       Constitution of India – Art.142 – Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 –
       ss.13(1)(ia), 13(1)(ib) – ‘cruelty’; ‘desertion’ – Dissolution of
       marriage in exercise of powers u/Art.142, on the ground of
       irretrievable breakdown – Family Court dismissed the divorce
       petition filed by the Respondent-husband holding that he
       failed to prove the cruelty committed by the Appellant-wife
       against him – Order set aside by High Court, granting divorce
       in favour of Respondent holding that cruelty was committed
       by the Appellant against the Respondent as she denied sexual
       relations on several occasions; desertion due to long absence
       from matrimonial home; and parties were living separately
       since 15 years – Correctness:
       Held: Decree of divorce as granted by High Court is upheld –
       Denial of conjugal rights including persistent refusal of sexual
       intercourse without a reasonable cause constitutes mental cruelty
       and is a valid ground for divorce u/s.13(1)(ia) – Withholding sexual
       intimacy inflicts severe emotional distress and undermines the
       bedrock of marriage – Appellant has not denied the fact that
       they used to sleep in different rooms – Thus, the acceptance of
       the ground of cruelty for grant of divorce is correct – Moreover,
       even during the short period of cohabitation parties failed to
       perform their conjugal responsibilities – They have strongly held
* Author
50                                                             [2026] 7 S.C.R.

                           Supreme Court Reports


      views with regard to the approach towards matrimonial life and
      refused to accommodate each other for a long period of time –
      In situations where parties have been living separately for a
      considerable time without any hope for reconciliation amounts
      to cruelty to both the parties – Parties had a prolonged physical
      separation spanning more than a decade and a half – Although
      the Appellant contended that she had left her job in Gujarat and
      started residing in Bharatpur, Rajasthan in their matrimonial home
      but there is no evidence to substantiate the same – Rather the
      evidence is to the contrary and it is not disputed that she still
      continues with her job in Gujarat – Further, while the statutory
      ground of ‘desertion’ u/s.13(1)(ib) was not formally pleaded
      by the Respondent however, the element of desertion can be
      viewed neutrally through an objective lens where spouses choose
      independent professional and geographical paths and remain
      completely estranged without any reciprocal effort to bridge
      the distance – In such circumstances, desertion ceases to be
      merely a matter of individual malice or unilateral fault rather it
      assumes the character of a shared, de facto abandonment of
      the matrimonial covenant – Parties have objectively deserted
      the matrimonial framework itself – The intentional maintenance
      of distinct lifestyles, separate domiciles, and the total cessation
      of marital interaction over fifteen years establishes a de facto
      abandonment of the marital covenant by both sides – Marriage
      between the Appellant and the Respondent has broken down
      irretrievably and is dissolved in exercise of powers u/Art.142 of
      the Constitution of India. [Paras 18, 19, 22, 24, 27, 28, 30, 34]

      Constitution of India – Art.142 – Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 –
      Exercise of inherent powers u/Art.142, for dissolution of a
      marriage on the ground of its irretrievable breakdown, though
      the facts of the case do not provide a ground in law on which
      the divorce could be granted – It is in the best interest of
      parties and the society if ties are severed between parties in
      cases where litigation has been pending for a considerably
      long period of time:
      Held: This Court has exercised its inherent powers u/Art.142 for
      dissolution of a marriage where it finds that the marriage is totally
      unworkable, emotionally dead, beyond salvage and has broken
      down irretrievably, even if the facts of the case do not provide
      a ground in law on which the divorce could be granted – In the
[2026] 7 S.C.R.                                                              51

                     Sonal Talpada v. Veerbhan Singh


     present case, admittedly, the Appellant-wife and the Respondent-
     husband have been living separately for more than 15 years, all
     efforts to reconcile them have failed and therefore, it will not be
     possible for the parties to live together – Therefore, this is a fit
     case to exercise the powers u/Art.142 and to dissolve the marriage
     between the parties – Though, the approach of the Courts should
     be to preserve the sanctity of marriage and the Court should be
     reluctant to dissolve the marriage at the mere asking of one of the
     parties but, in the present case, the parties have lived separately
     for far too long a period of time and there is no sanctity left in the
     marriage – Although, the Appellant contended that she had left
     her job in Gujarat and started residing in Bharatpur, Rajasthan in
     their matrimonial home but there is no evidence to substantiate
     the same – Rather the evidence on record is to the contrary and
     it is not disputed that she still continues with her job in Gujarat –
     There appears to be no intention on her part to join company of
     the husband – Grant of divorce in the present proceedings would
     not have a devastating effect on any third party, as there are
     no children from the wedlock – Moreover, prolonged pendency
     of matrimonial litigation only leads to perpetuity of marriage on
     paper – It is in the best interest of parties and the society if ties
     are severed between parties in cases where litigation has been
     pending for a considerably long period of time. [Paras 34-36, 38]

     Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Mental cruelty, allegations of –
     Withdrawal from the foundational aspects of marriage have legal
     consequences while evaluating allegations of mental cruelty:
     Held: Marriage, in its legal and constitutional dimension, can
     never be reduced to a mere contractual intersection of individual
     rights, nor can it be viewed strictly through the narrow lens of a
     petition for conjugal rights – It is a deeply personal and social
     partnership built on mutual respect, shared expectations and
     equal responsibility – When two parties enter into matrimony, they
     weave a tapestry of interdependence that demands a continuous
     balancing of interests – Conjugal rights do not exist in a vacuum;
     they are the structural counterparts to conjugal duties – To demand
     the fulfilment of the former while wilfully abandoning the sanctity
     of the latter is to undermine the very essence of the institution –
     Therefore, matrimony is not a one-sided right to be enforced, but
     a shared covenant of emotional support, fidelity, responsibility and
     care, where the rights of one are always tied to the duties they
52                                                              [2026] 7 S.C.R.

                           Supreme Court Reports


      owe to the other – Persistent withdrawal from the foundational
      aspects of marriage may have legal consequences while evaluating
      allegations of mental cruelty. [Para 22]

      Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – ss.13(1)(ia), 13(1)(ib) – ‘cruelty’;
      ‘desertion’ – Appellate Court entitled to consider the conduct
      of the parties during the pendency of litigation – Family
      Court dismissed the divorce petition filed by the Respondent-
      husband holding that he failed to prove the cruelty committed
      by the Appellant-wife against him – High Court allowed the
      appeal filed by the Respondent, granting divorce in his favour
      holding that cruelty was committed by the Appellant against
      the Respondent as she denied sexual relations on several
      occasions; desertion due to long absence from matrimonial
      home; and parties were living separately since 15 years:
      Held: High Court rightly assessed that where parties have been
      living separately for several years and at this stage asking them
      to live together after a prolonged duration would amount to cruelty
      to both the parties and divorce can be granted on this ground as
      provided u/s.13 (1)(ia) – Further, though, desertion as a ground
      requires an initial period as mentioned under the statute but if
      such desertion continues for a long period of time without any
      effort on the part of the parties to restore cohabitation would itself
      be a ground to be considered by the Appellate Court – Human
      relations are dynamic and once the initial mandate under the
      statute stands satisfied, continuation thereof during the litigation
      would aggravate the said agony which could be confirmational in
      substantiating the basis and pleaded ground for divorce – The
      same can be taken into consideration for formation of an opinion
      to accept the prayer by the Appellate Court – Appeal is the
      continuation of a suit and therefore, the Appellate Court would be
      entitled and justified to consider the conduct of the parties during
      the pendency of litigation – The same can also be looked into to
      support or reject an opinion on the ground in question – An Appellate
      Court, while carefully ensuring that a party does not profit from
      their own manifest wrong or unilateral desertion, may legitimately
      treat a prolonged period of separation as an indicator of mental
      cruelty within the meaning of s.13(1)(ia) – Appellate Court is not
      precluded from examining whether continuous separation over a
      substantial period, coupled with absence of any genuine effort at
      reconciliation, complete cessation of cohabitation and emotional
      alienation has resulted in mental cruelty – Subsequent events
[2026] 7 S.C.R.                                                             53

                    Sonal Talpada v. Veerbhan Singh


     occurring during pendency of proceedings may legitimately be
     taken into consideration while undertaking such assessment – In
     such circumstances, the confirmation of a decree of divorce by an
     Appellate Court is not an invocation of extraordinary constitutional
     jurisdiction u/Art.142, but a lawful and realistic application of the
     statutory ground of cruelty to the facts of the case. [Paras 25, 26]

                              Case Law Cited
     Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh [2007] 4 SCR 428 : (2007) 4 SCC
     511; Vikas Kanaujia v. Sarita [2024] 7 SCR 933 : (2025) 3 SCC
     748; Amutha v. A.R. Subramanian 2024 INSC 1033 : [2024] 12
     SCR 755 : 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3822; Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun
     Sreenivasan [2023] 5 SCR 165 : (2023) 14 SCC 231; Nayan
     Bhowmick v. Aparna Chakraborty, 2025 INSC 1436 : 2025 SCC
     OnLine SC 2798; R. Srinivas Kumar v. R. Shametha [2019] 12
     SCR 873 : (2019) 9 SCC 409 – relied on.
     Darshan Gupta v. Radhika Gupta [2013] 10 SCR 937 : (2013) 9
     SCC 1; Vishnu Dutt Sharma v. Manju Sharma [2009] 3 SCR 891 :
     (2009) 6 SCC 379; Naveen Kohli v. Neelu Kohli [2006] 3 SCR
     53 : (2006) 4 SCC 558; Savitri Pandey v. Prem Chandra Pandey
     [2002] 1 SCR 50 : (2002) 2 SCC 73 – referred to.

                                List of Acts
     Constitution of India; Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

                             List of Keywords
     Irretrievable breakdown of marriage; Marriage dissolved in exercise
     of powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India; Section
     13(1) (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955; Section 13(1) (ib)
     of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955; ‘mental cruelty’; ‘desertion’;
     Ground of ‘desertion’ not formally pleaded; Desertion for a long
     period of time; Prolonged physical separation; Long absence from
     matrimonial home; Denial of conjugal rights; Persistent refusal of
     sexual intercourse; Sexual intimacy withheld; Severe emotional
     distress; Decree of divorce upheld; Denial of conjugal rights; Short
     period of cohabitation; Failure to perform conjugal responsibilities;
     Marriage totally unworkable; Marriage emotionally dead; Marriage
     beyond salvage; Approach towards matrimonial life; Refusal to
     accommodate; Parties living separately for a considerable time;
     No hope for reconciliation; Parties living separately for more than
54                                                                  [2026] 7 S.C.R.

                            Supreme Court Reports


      15 years; All efforts to reconcile failed; All efforts of reconciliation
      failed; Not possible for the parties to live together; Distinct lifestyles;
      Separate domiciles; Total cessation of marital interaction; de facto
      abandonment of marital covenant.

                               Case Arising From
      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 8391 of 2026
      From the Judgment and Order dated 02.01.2025 of the High Court
      of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur in DBCM No. 5127 of 2019

                            Appearances for Parties
      Advs. for the Appellant(s):
      Neeraj Shekhar, Mrs. Kshama Sharma, Ram Bacchan Choudhary.
      Advs. for the Respondent(s):
      Mithilesh Jha, Ms. Rishika Chahar, Tarun Chauhan.

                  Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

                                    Judgment

      Augustine George Masih, J.

1.    Leave granted.
2.    The instant Appeal assails the judgment and order dated 02.01.2025
      (hereinafter referred to as “Impugned Judgment”) passed by the
      High Court of Rajasthan at Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as “High
      Court”), whereby the D.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 5127 of
      2019 filed by the Respondent-husband (Divorce Petitioner) herein
      stands allowed by setting aside the judgment and decree dated
      21.08.2019 passed by the Family Court at Bharatpur, Rajasthan
      (hereinafter referred to as “Family Court”), vide which petition seeking
      divorce from the Appellant-wife filed by the Respondent-husband
      was dismissed.
3.    Brief facts are that the marriage of the Appellant-wife and the
      Respondent-husband took place on 05.12.2007 as per the Hindu
      rites in Nadiyad Khera, Gujarat. No child was born out of their
      wedlock. At the time of marriage, Appellant-wife was working
      as a Gynaecologist in a government hospital in Nadiyad Khera,
[2026] 7 S.C.R.                                                          55

                    Sonal Talpada v. Veerbhan Singh


     Gujarat and Respondent-husband, also a doctor, in State service
     in Rajasthan.
4.   It appears that there were sociocultural differences between the parties
     and according to the Respondent-husband, cruelty was meted out
     to him. Appellant-wife lived with him for hardly two to three months
     in their matrimonial home at Bharatpur, Rajasthan during their
     matrimonial period of two years. Leading to the Respondent-husband
     filing a divorce petition in the year 2009 before the Family Court. The
     said petition was filed under Section 13(1) (ia) of the Hindu Marriage
     Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as “HMA”). The Family Court on
     21.08.2018 dismissed the said divorce petition holding therein that
     the Respondent-husband has failed to prove the cruelty committed
     by the Appellant-wife against him.
5.   Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order
     passed by the Family Court dismissing the divorce petition, the
     Respondent-husband preferred an appeal before the High Court.
     By the impugned judgment and order, the High Court allowed the
     said appeal. Hence, the Appellant-wife is before this Court by way
     of the present appeal.
6.   The learned counsel appearing for the Appellant-wife submits that
     she has never abandoned the Respondent-husband and was always
     ready and willing to lead a matrimonial life with him. Respondent-
     husband cannot be allowed to take advantage of his own wrong.
     It was further contended that Respondent-husband did not allow
     Appellant-wife to perform her conjugal duties.
7.   The learned counsel further submits that the grounds for desertion
     and irretrievable breakdown of marriage were not pleaded in the
     Divorce Petition. In fact, it was Respondent-husband who deserted
     the Appellant-wife. Appellant-wife had left her government service in
     Gujarat and started living in Bharatpur to save her matrimonial life.
     Father of the Respondent-husband had allowed the Appellant-wife to
     work in Gujarat till construction of Nursing home in Bharatpur. However,
     construction of said nursing home never commenced and therefore,
     Appellant-wife continued working in Gujarat. Respondent-husband
     has failed to produce any evidence to establish that Appellant-wife
     has committed any cruelty against him. Therefore, present appeal be
     allowed and decree of Divorce granted by the High Court vide the
     impugned judgment in favour of Respondent-husband be set aside.
56                                                          [2026] 7 S.C.R.

                                Supreme Court Reports


8.     Learned counsel for Appellant-wife has heavily relied upon decisions
       of this Court in Darshan Gupta v. Radhika Gupta1, Vishnu Dutt
       Sharma v. Manju Sharma2 and Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh3.
9.     The present appeal is vehemently opposed by the learned counsel
       of the Respondent­husband. The learned counsel submits that the
       Appellant-wife has never made any efforts to save her matrimonial
       life. The parties are living separately for more than 15 years and
       have co-habited for merely 2-3 months in the span of 18 years.
       The Appellant-wife has denied establishment of sexual relations to
       Respondent-husband on several occasions. Therefore, the Appellant-
       wife has committed cruelty and has deserted the Respondent-
       husband.
10. Learned counsel for the Respondent-husband further submits that
    the Appellant-wife has failed to build any mutual trust, companionship
    and shared experiences with the Respondent-husband which led to
    irretrievable breakdown of marriage. The parties have different lifestyle
    and personal preferences. To overcome such differences is beyond
    the control of both the parties. There is no chance of reconciliation.
    Parties were engaged in matrimonial litigation from last many years.
    It is denied that Appellant-wife has left her job in Gujarat. He asserts
    that it is a fit case to dissolve the marriage between the Appellant-
    wife and the Respondent-husband on the ground of irretrievable
    breakdown of marriage. Therefore, the present appeal deserves to
    be dismissed.
11. The learned counsel for the Respondent-husband has relied upon
    decisions of this Court in Naveen Kohli v. Neelu Kohli4, Vikas
    Kanaujia v. Sarita 5, Amutha v. A.R. Subramanian 6, Shilpa
    Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan 7 and Savitri Pandey v. Prem
    Chandra Pandey8.



1     (2013) 9 SCC 1
2     (2009) 6 SCC 379
3     (2007) 4 SCC 511
4     (2006) 4 SCC 558
5     (2025) 3 SCC 748
6     2024 INSC 1033 : 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3822
7     (2023) 14 SCC 231
8     (2002) 2 SCC 73
[2026] 7 S.C.R.                                                          57

                    Sonal Talpada v. Veerbhan Singh


12. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties at
    length and with their assistance have gone through the relevant
    pleadings and evidence lead by the parties before the Courts below.
    It is pertinent to mention, that the Appellant-wife has, right from the
    stage of trial till this Court, rigidly maintained her stand that she
    does not want to dissolve the marriage and wants to continue her
    matrimonial life with the Respondent-husband. No other civil or
    criminal proceedings were instituted by either party against each
    other.
13. The parties have been living separately for about fifteen (15) years
    and there is no child from the wedlock. Despite repeated efforts by
    Courts, there has been no reconciliation between the parties. At the
    stage of admission of appeal, this Court had referred the parties
    to mediation vide order dated 23.05.2025. However, mediation
    was unsuccessful which is evident from the Mediation report dated
    27.11.2025. No efforts have been made since then, by either of the
    parties, to reconcile their matrimonial differences.
14. At the outset, it is required to be noted that the High Court granted the
    divorce in favour of Respondent-husband on the following grounds:
     a)    Appellant-wife had insulted the Respondent-husband before a
           shopkeeper while on their visit to Taj Mahal;
     b)    Cruelty was committed by the Appellant-wife against the
           Respondent-husband as she denied sexual relations on several
           occasions;
     c)    Desertion due to long absence from matrimonial home; and
     d)    Parties were living separately since 15 years.
15. Adverting to findings recorded by the High Court, this Court is
    called to adjudicate upon whether the Respondent-husband was
    subjected to ‘cruelty’ within the meaning of law, and whether the
    marital bond between the parties has ruptured to such an extent
    that the marriage has broken down irretrievably, rendering any
    reconciliation impossible.
16. Though with respect to ‘cruelty’ no uniform standard can ever be laid
    down for guidance, yet this Court in Samar Ghosh (supra) deemed
    it appropriate to enumerate some instances of human behaviour
    which may be relevant in dealing with the cases of ‘mental cruelty’:
58                                                         [2026] 7 S.C.R.

                        Supreme Court Reports


          “Para 101........(xii) Unilateral decision of refusal to have
          intercourse for considerable period without there being
          any physical incapacity or valid reason may amount to
          mental cruelty. (xiii) Unilateral decision of either husband
          or wife after marriage not to have child from the marriage
          may amount to cruelty. (xiv) Where there has been a long
          period of continuous separation, it may fairly be concluded
          that the matrimonial bond is beyond repair. The marriage
          becomes a fiction though supported by a legal tie. By
          refusing to sever that tie, the law in such cases, does not
          serve the sanctity of marriage; on the contrary, it shows
          scant regard for the feelings and emotions of the parties.
          In such like situations, it may lead to mental cruelty.”
                                               (emphasis supplied)

17. Reverting to facts of the present case, with regards to contention
    that the Appellant-wife had insulted the Respondent-husband before
    the shopkeeper, the Family Court has correctly assessed that the
    Respondent-husband himself admitted that Taj Mahal was closed
    on that day so, there was no requirement of hiring a drunk guide.
    There is nothing wrong in wife asking for a Teddy bear.
18. However, on the question of cruelty from the evidence of the
    Respondent-husband it also, comes out that even during that short
    period of cohabitation the Appellate-wife used to sleep early in night,
    lock her room from inside and never open the door on knocking.
    The Respondent-husband used to sleep in other separate room.
    The Appellant-wife has not denied the fact that they used to sleep
    in different rooms. The acceptance of the ground of cruelty for grant
    of divorce is, thus, correct.
19. As held in the case of Samar Ghosh (supra) and other catena of
    judgments by this Court, denial of conjugal rights including persistent
    refusal of sexual intercourse without a reasonable cause constitutes
    mental cruelty and is a valid ground for divorce under Section 13(1)
    (ia) of the HMA. The courts in India have repeatedly established that
    withholding sexual intimacy inflicts severe emotional distress and
    undermines the bedrock of marriage. Therefore, the conclusion of
    the High Court is sustained. The decree of divorce as granted by
    allowing the appeal of the Respondent-husband is upheld.
[2026] 7 S.C.R.                                                           59

                    Sonal Talpada v. Veerbhan Singh


20. As regarding the ground of desertion, the Family Court has pointed
    out that the father of Respondent-husband had admitted during his
    cross-examination that he had asked father of Appellant-wife that she
    can continue to work in Nadiyad Khera, Gujarat till a nursing home
    was constructed in Bharatpur, Rajasthan. Merely because father-in-
    law had said so would not in itself means a licence for not joining
    and fulfilling the matrimonial obligations which arise upon the parties
    having entered into the relationship of husband and wife. Seeing
    when the things were not moving with regards to the construction
    of the nursing home, steps need to have been taken by the parties
    to cohabitate. Nothing has come on record indicating any effort on
    the part of the Appellant-wife or even the Respondent-husband in
    this direction.
21. While the statutory ground of desertion may not have been pleaded
    but matrimonial disputes are seldom confined to isolated legal
    labels. The Court is also required to examine the overall conduct
    of the parties and the manner in which they have discharged their
    matrimonial obligations. It is from this broader perspective issue of
    cruelty deserves further consideration.
22. Marriage, in its legal and constitutional dimension, can never be
    reduced to a mere contractual intersection of individual rights, nor
    can it be viewed strictly through the narrow lens of a petition for
    conjugal rights. It is a deeply personal and social partnership built
    on mutual respect, shared expectations and equal responsibility.
    When two parties enter into matrimony, they weave a tapestry of
    interdependence that demands a continuous balancing of interests.
    Conjugal rights do not exist in a vacuum; they are the structural
    counterparts to conjugal duties. To demand the fulfilment of the former
    while wilfully abandoning the sanctity of the latter is to undermine the
    very essence of the institution. Matrimony, therefore, is not a one-sided
    right to be enforced, but a shared covenant of emotional support,
    fidelity, responsibility and care, where the rights of one are always
    tied to the duties they owe to the other. Persistent withdrawal from
    the foundational aspects of marriage may have legal consequences
    while evaluating allegations of mental cruelty.
23. From the conduct of parties, it is clear that even during the short period
    of cohabitation they failed to perform their conjugal responsibilities.
    The parties have strongly held views with regard to the approach
60                                                            [2026] 7 S.C.R.

                                Supreme Court Reports


       towards matrimonial life and they have refused to accommodate
       each other for a long period of time. As held in the case of Nayan
       Bhowmick v. Aparna Chakraborty9, this Court is of the view that in
       matrimonial matters involving two individuals, it is not for the society
       or for the Court to sit in judgment over which spouse’s approach
       is correct or not. It is their strongly held views and their refusal to
       accommodate each other that amounts to cruelty to one another.
24. This Court in multitude of cases, has held that in situations where
    parties have been living separately for a considerable time without
    any hope for reconciliation amounts to cruelty to both the parties.
25. In the light of the above, it can be said that the High Court has
    rightly assessed that where parties have been living separately for
    several years and at this stage asking them to live together after a
    prolonged duration would amount to cruelty to both the parties and
    divorce can be granted on this ground as provided under section
    13 (1)(ia) of HMA. It may be added here that desertion as a ground
    requires an initial period as mentioned under the statute but if such
    desertion continues for a long period of time without any effort on the
    part of the parties to restore cohabitation would itself be a ground
    to be considered by the Appellate Court. This we say in the light
    of the fact that human relations are dynamic and once the initial
    mandate under the statute stands satisfied, continuation thereof
    during the litigation would aggravate the said agony which could be
    confirmational in substantiating the basis and pleaded ground for
    divorce. The same can be taken into consideration for formation of
    an opinion to accept the prayer by the Appellate Court. Appeal is the
    continuation of a suit and therefore, the Appellate Court would be
    entitled and justified to consider the conduct of the parties during the
    pendency of litigation. The same can also be looked into to support
    or reject an opinion on the ground in question.
26. An Appellate Court, while carefully ensuring that a party does not
    profit from their own manifest wrong or unilateral desertion, may
    legitimately treat a prolonged period of separation as an indicator of
    mental cruelty within the meaning of Section 13(1)(ia) of the HMA. The
    Appellate Court is not precluded from examining whether continuous
    separation over a substantial period, coupled with absence of any


9     2025 INSC 1436 : 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2798
[2026] 7 S.C.R.                                                           61

                    Sonal Talpada v. Veerbhan Singh


     genuine effort at reconciliation, complete cessation of cohabitation
     and emotional alienation has resulted in mental cruelty. Subsequent
     events occurring during pendency of proceedings may legitimately
     be taken into consideration while undertaking such assessment. In
     such circumstances, the confirmation of a decree of divorce by an
     Appellate Court is not an invocation of extraordinary constitutional
     jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, but a lawful
     and realistic application of the statutory ground of cruelty to the facts
     of the case.
27. A significant aspect of this case is the prolonged physical separation
    spanning more than a decade and a half. While the statutory ground
    of ‘desertion’ under Section 13(1)(ib) of the HMA has not been
    formally pleaded by the Respondent-husband however, the element
    of desertion can be viewed neutrally through an objective lens where
    spouses choose independent professional and geographical paths
    and remain completely estranged without any reciprocal effort to
    bridge the distance.
28. In such circumstances, desertion ceases to be merely a matter of
    individual malice or unilateral fault rather it assumes the character
    of a shared, de facto abandonment of the matrimonial covenant.
    The parties have objectively deserted the matrimonial framework
    itself. The intentional maintenance of distinct lifestyles, separate
    domiciles, and the total cessation of marital interaction over fifteen
    years establishes a de facto abandonment of the marital covenant
    by both sides.
29. In any event, this Court in exercise of power to do “complete justice”
    under Article 142(1) of the Constitution of India has the discretion
    to dissolve the marriage on the ground of irretrievable breakdown.
30. In present case, it is not disputed that since more than last 15 years
    both the Appellant-wife and the Respondent-husband are residing
    separately. It also appears that all efforts to continue the marriage
    have failed and there is no possibility of re-union because of the
    strained relations between the parties. Thus, it is apparent that
    marriage between the Appellant-wife and the Respondent-husband
    has also, broken down irretrievably.
31. In the case of Vikas Kanaujia (supra), where the husband and wife
    lived together for total 43 days and period for separation was more
    than 22 years, this Court held that:
62                                                      [2026] 7 S.C.R.

                     Supreme Court Reports


      “17. The husband and wife have lived together on their own
      will for hardly 23 days since marriage. They further lived
      together for 20 more days from 15.06.2005 to 05.07.2015
      as Sessions Court passed order for conciliation. Thus, in
      total the parties have not lived together for more than 43
      days. The Respondent left her matrimonial house within
      the first month of marriage. The period of separation has
      been more than 22 years. The possibility of parties living
      together is further reduced as parties are in their early
      50s now and have built independent lives. Further, the
      parties have fought multiple legal battles against each
      other since 2002 itself with six cases filed against each
      other, including criminal cases. The Respondent had
      filed a criminal case against the Appellant and his family
      members where they were arrested although subsequently
      discharged and acquitted.
      18. Although the respondent claims that she is willing to
      live with the Appellant believing in the sanctity of marriage,
      her actions are not in consonance with her claim. In this
      long period of 22 years, there was no one to stop her
      from living together with the Appellant. The mediation
      and conciliation proceedings have failed. The Appellant
      on the other hand states that the claim of willingness to
      live together is falsely projected claim before the Court of
      law only to mislead the Court, delay the proceedings and
      harass the appellant.
      19. Thus, the effective cumulation of actions of both the
      parties in past 22 years since marriage has resulted in
      demolition of their matrimonial bond beyond repair. The
      marriage has ceased to exist both in substance and in
      reality. The relation has even taken a sour taste as the
      families of parties have also developed rivalries. The act of
      Respondent to lodge a missing complaint against Appellant
      after the delivery of impugned order is also indicative of
      the bitter relation between the parties. Considering the long
      separation period of 22 years, lack of existence of marriage
      between the parties and the sour relations developed
      due to continuous legal battles, we deem this case to be
[2026] 7 S.C.R.                                                          63

                    Sonal Talpada v. Veerbhan Singh


           fit for exercise of extraordinary powers conferred under
           Article 142 of the Constitution.
           20. In Rajib Kumar Roy vs Sushmita Saha, this Court
           exercised the power conferred under Article 142 of the
           Constitution of India by dissolving the marriage between
           parties who were living separately for 12 years. Paragraph
           Nos. 8, 9 and 10 of the judgement are reproduced
           hereunder:
                ‘8. Continued bitterness, dead emotions and long
                separation, in the given facts and circumstances of
                a case, can be construed as a case of ‘irretrievable
                breakdown of marriage’, which is also a facet of
                ‘cruelty’. In Rakesh Raman v. Kavita, 2023 SCC
                OnLine SC 497, this is precisely what was held, that
                though in a given case cruelty as a fault, may not
                be attributable to one party alone and hence despite
                irretrievable breakdown of marriage keeping the
                parties together amounts to cruelty on both sides.
                Which is precisely the case at hand.
                9. Whatever may be the justification for the two living
                separately, with so much of time gone by, any marital
                love or affection, which may have been between the
                parties, seems to have dried up. This is a classic case
                of irretrievable breakdown of marriage. In view of the
                Constitution Bench Judgment of this court in Shilpa
                Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan, 2023 SCC OnLine
                SC 544 which has held that in such cases where
                there is irretrievable breakdown of marriage then
                dissolution of marriage is the only solution and this
                Court can grant a decree of divorce in exercise of its
                power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India.
                10. We therefore declare the marriage to have broken
                down irretrievably and therefore in exercise of our
                jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of
                India we are of the considered opinion that this being
                a case of irretrievable breakdown of marriage must
                now be dissolved by grant of decree of divorce.’ ”
                                               (emphasis supplied)
64                                                          [2026] 7 S.C.R.

                         Supreme Court Reports


32. In the case of Shilpa Shailesh (supra), while considering the cases
    of Darshan Gupta (supra) and Vishnu Dutt Sharma (supra) as
    relied upon by the Appellant-wife, the Constitution Bench clarified
    that this Court, in exercise of power under Article 142(1) of the
    Constitution of India, has the discretion to dissolve the marriage on
    the ground of its irretrievable breakdown. This discretionary power
    is to be exercised to do ‘complete justice’ to the parties, wherein this
    Court is satisfied that the facts established show that the marriage
    has completely failed and there is no possibility that the parties will
    cohabit together, and continuation of the formal legal relationship is
    unjustified. The Court, as a court of equity, is required to also balance
    the circumstances and the background in which the party opposing
    the dissolution is placed. Further, it was held that:
          “62. Having said so, we wish to clearly state that grant
          of divorce on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of
          marriage by this Court is not a matter of right, but a
          discretion which is to be exercised with great care and
          caution, keeping in mind several factors ensuring that
          “complete justice” is done to both parties. It is obvious
          that this Court should be fully convinced and satisfied that
          the marriage is totally unworkable, emotionally dead and
          beyond salvation and, therefore, dissolution of marriage
          is the right solution and the only way forward.
          63. That the marriage has irretrievably broken down is to
          be factually determined and firmly established. For this,
          several factors are to be considered such as the period
          of time the parties had cohabited after marriage; when
          the parties had last cohabited; the nature of allegations
          made by the parties against each other and their family
          members; the orders passed in the legal proceedings
          from time to time, cumulative impact on the personal
          relationship; whether, and how many attempts were made
          to settle the disputes by intervention of the court or through
          mediation, and when the last attempt was made, etc.
          The period of separation should be sufficiently long, and
          anything above six years or more will be a relevant factor.
          But these facts have to be evaluated keeping in view the
          economic and social status of the parties, including their
          educational qualifications, whether the parties have any
          children, their age, educational qualification, and whether
[2026] 7 S.C.R.                                                             65

                         Sonal Talpada v. Veerbhan Singh


              the other spouse and children are dependent, in which
              event how and in what manner the party seeking divorce
              intends to take care and provide for the spouse or the
              children. Question of custody and welfare of minor children,
              provision for fair and adequate alimony for the wife, and
              economic rights of the children and other pending matters,
              if any, are relevant considerations. We would not like to
              codify the factors so as to curtail exercise of jurisdiction
              under Article 142(1) of the Constitution of India, which is
              situation specific. Some of the factors mentioned can be
              taken as illustrative, and worthy of consideration.”
                                                  (emphasis supplied)

33. In the similar set of facts and circumstances of the case, this Court
    in the case of R. Srinivas Kumar v. R. Shametha10 had directed to
    dissolve the marriage on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of
    marriage as parties were living separately for more than 22 years,
    in exercise of powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India.
34. This Court, in a series of judgments, has exercised its inherent
    powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India for dissolution
    of a marriage where the Court finds that the marriage is totally
    unworkable, emotionally dead, beyond salvage and has broken down
    irretrievably, even if the facts of the case do not provide a ground
    in law on which the divorce could be granted. In the present case,
    admittedly, the Appellant-wife and the Respondent-husband have
    been living separately for more than 15 years, all efforts to reconcile
    them have failed and therefore, it will not be possible for the parties to
    live together. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that this is
    a fit case to exercise the powers under Article 142 of the Constitution
    of India and to dissolve the marriage between the parties.
35. This Court is conscious of the view that approach of the Courts
    should be to preserve the sanctity of marriage and the Court should
    be reluctant to dissolve the marriage at the mere asking of one of the
    parties. But, in the present case, the parties have lived separately
    for far too long a period of time and there is no sanctity left in the
    marriage. Although plea had been taken that the Appellant-wife had
    left her job in Gujarat and started residing in Bharatpur, Rajasthan but


10   (2019) 9 SCC 409
66                                                           [2026] 7 S.C.R.

                             Supreme Court Reports


      no evidence has come on record to substantiate the same. Rather
      the evidence on record is to the contrary and it is not disputed that
      she still continues with her job in Gujarat. There appears to be no
      intention on her part to join company of the husband as actions speak
      more than the dry words. Grant of divorce in the present proceedings
      would not have a devastating effect on any third party, as there are
      no children from the wedlock. Both the wife and husband are doctors
      and are in government service in State of Gujarat and Rajasthan
      respectively, therefore, financially well off and independent.
36. This Court is also of the view that prolonged pendency of matrimonial
    litigation only leads to perpetuity of marriage on paper. It is in the
    best interest of parties and the society if ties are severed between
    parties in cases where litigation has been pending for a considerably
    long period of time. Prolongation of a matrimonial relationship would
    further lead not only to escalation of frustration in a dead relationship,
    which has already decayed and is decomposing day by day creating
    foul sociological, psychological and mental hollowness in life resulting
    in denial of a free and independent environment to flourish which
    each human strives in body and soul. Consequently, this Court is of
    the opinion that such matrimonial litigation pending in Court needs
    to be put to end by granting effective release to the parties from a
    stale and frozen relationship.
37. In the light of what has been stated above, in our considered view,
    this would be a fit case where the relationship of marriage should
    come to an end for which exercise of powers under Article 142 of
    the Constitution of India would be essential to do complete justice.
    Accordingly, the marriage between the Appellant-wife and the
    Respondent-husband deserves to be dissolved in exercise of powers
    under Article 142 of the Constitution of India.
38. As a consequence of the above, the present appeal stands dismissed.
39. There shall be no order as to cost.
40. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.

      Result of the case: Appeal dismissed.



      †
          Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey