DIVORCE LAW IN INDIA
Divorce law in India: Supreme Court case-law round-up (2025)
2025 was a consequential year for Indian matrimonial jurisprudence. Building on the Constitution Bench ruling in Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan (2023)—which affirmed the Supreme Court’s power under Article 142 to dissolve marriages on the ground of irretrievable breakdown—the Court issued a string of decisions that refined the law on (i) when and how “dead marriages” may be dissolved, and (ii) how interim and permanent support should be calibrated. Together, these rulings emphasise speed, realism, and fairness: if a marriage has plainly collapsed, the law should bring closure; and when it does, financial relief must be balanced and evidence-based. (SCI API, Supreme Court Observer)
1) Maintenance even in void marriages: Sukhdev Singh v. Sukhbir Kaur (3-Judge Bench)
In a landmark, reportable judgment, a three-judge bench (Abhay S. Oka, Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Augustine George Masih JJ.) settled a long-running conflict on whether a spouse in a void marriage can receive maintenance. The Court held that Section 25 HMA (permanent alimony) is available even when a marriage is declared void, and Section 24 HMA (interim maintenance) may be granted pendente lite if prima facie warranted. The bench stressed that relief remains discretionary and fact-sensitive, but rejected any blanket bar merely because a marriage is void. This decision gives family courts clearer authority to prevent destitution and curb tactical delays premised on technical pleas of nullity.
2) “Don’t compel dead marriages to continue”: Pradeep Bhardwaj v. Priya (Vikram Nath & Sandeep Mehta JJ., 15 July 2025)
Reinforcing the Constitution Bench, the Court granted a decree of divorce under Article 142 after nearly 16 years of separation. It observed that marital bonds rooted in dignity and companionship cannot be kept alive by litigation alone; forcing a dead marriage to continue only perpetuates mental agony. Notably, even as it dissolved the marriage, the Court enhanced composite maintenance for the wife and teenage son to ₹15,000 per month, exemplifying the twin commitment to humane exit and fair support.
3) Long separation and no realistic chance of reunion: Kumari Rekha v. Shambhu Saran Paswan (Dipankar Datta & Manmohan JJ., 6 May 2025)
Here, the spouses had been apart for over 12 years. After interacting with the adult child and finding repeated reconciliation attempts futile, the Court dissolved the marriage under Article 142—even though the husband opposed divorce and traditional statutory grounds were disputed. Significantly, because the wife made no claim for alimony, the Court recorded that no maintenance order was warranted, signalling that relief under Article 142 is not tied to any automatic financial grant and will track the pleadings and record.
4) Using Article 142 within a criminal appeal to end civil strife: Aashita Singhania Saraf v. State of West Bengal & Ors. (B.V. Nagarathna & Satish Chandra Sharma JJ., 29 Apr 2025)
Demonstrating procedural pragmatism, the Court allowed an Article 142 application in a criminal appellate matter to (a) dissolve a marriage solemnised under the Special Marriage Act, (b) quash all inter-se proceedings, and (c) record a full and final settlement (₹1.25 crore), bringing a messy, multi-forum battle to a dignified close. The order expressly relied on Shilpa Sailesh to justify dissolution on irretrievable breakdown and directed the Registry to draw a decree reflecting dissolution under Section 28 SMA. This is a notable template for comprehensive closure when civil and criminal cases are intertwined.
5) Calibrating permanent alimony and property transfer: Rakhi Sadhukhan v. Raja Sadhukhan (29 May 2025)
The Court enhanced permanent alimony to ₹50,000 per month (with 5% biennial escalation), ordered transfer of the matrimonial house to the wife and minor child, and set timelines for compliance—underscoring that monetary relief must be realistic, enforceable, and child-centric. The judgment illustrates a structured approach: assess earning capacity, schooling needs, living arrangements, and a sustainable mechanism (like scheduled increments) rather than ad-hoc lump sums disconnected from future costs.
6) “Balanced approach” to permanent alimony: M.V. Leelavathi v. Dr. C.R. Swamy (Vikram Nath & Sandeep Mehta JJ., 18 Aug 2025)
Revisiting quantum, the Court replaced a modest mix of monthly support and a smaller lump sum with a one-time settlement of ₹50 lakh. The bench articulated a balancing test: weigh the paying spouse’s capacity and the recipient’s long-term security, while recognising the recipient’s qualifications and earning potential. The message is twofold—no windfalls merely because the other spouse earns more, and no penury for the financially weaker spouse after a long marriage. (Supreme Court Observer)
7) Quick snapshot: other 2025 threads
- Visitation coupled with dissolution: In Ramanuj Kumar v. Priyanka, the Court dissolved marriage under Article 142 and structured visitation for the child—showing that a decree of divorce and child-contact orders can be harmonised even when parties are bitterly opposed.
- Public messaging on extravagant claims: In a widely reported hearing, the Court queried exorbitant interim demands in a short-lived marriage, stressing self-reliance where the claimant is well-qualified. While a news report, not a final ratio, the episode reflects the Court’s trend towards principled, proportional maintenance rather than lifestyle parity. (The Economic Times)
What these decisions mean for practitioners and parties
1) Article 142 remains the fulcrum for dissolving “dead marriages.” The Court repeatedly invoked its Shilpa Sailesh discretion to cut through stalemates—especially where separation is long, mediation has failed, and continued cohabitation is unrealistic. Lawyers should marshal clear, contemporaneous evidence of prolonged separation, failed reconciliations, and the parties’ life trajectories to make (or resist) an Article 142 case. (SCI API)
2) Relief is holistic and can be issued across dockets.Aashita Singhania Saraf demonstrates that when civil and criminal cases are entangled, the Supreme Court may—in one order—dissolve the marriage, quash collateral proceedings, and record settlements. This supports global settlements that truly end litigation, saving costs and emotional wear.
3) Maintenance law is more inclusive—and more disciplined.Sukhdev Singh decisively clarifies that void marriages do not bar alimony, protecting vulnerable spouses from destitution tactics. At the same time, Leelavathi and Pradeep Bhardwaj show a calibrated approach: courts will look at capacity to pay, recipient’s needs and abilities, child needs, and the marriage’s duration, resisting both tokenism and windfalls. Expect more lump-sum structures or indexed payments with clear timelines and enforcement-friendly directions (like property transfer), particularly where children’s housing and stability are at stake. (Supreme Court Observer)
4) Pleadings still matter. In Kumari Rekha, the wife sought dissolution without an alimony claim; the Court obliged on divorce but declined maintenance for want of a claim—a reminder that even under Article 142, the Court will respect the scope of relief sought and the evidentiary record.
5) Child-centric orders accompany dissolution. Where appropriate, the Court coupled divorce with visitation/parenting directions, signalling that best interests of the child remain paramount and can be addressed within the same proceeding to avoid fresh rounds of litigation.
Bottom line
The 2025 line of cases pushes Indian divorce law toward realism, closure, and calibrated fairness. If a marriage is beyond repair, the Supreme Court will not let process become punishment: it will grant divorce under Article 142 and then shape financial and custodial consequences to fit the case. At the same time, maintenance jurisprudence is being tightened: eligibility is broad (even for void marriages), but quantum is disciplined—grounded in capacity, need, and the imperative to secure the future of children without turning alimony into a windfall. For litigants and counsel, the takeaway is clear: come with clean facts, focused reliefs, and concrete settlement proposals—the Court is ready to close the book on dead marriages, but it expects reliefs to be just, structured, and enforceable.
Sources (selected)
- Sukhdev Singh v. Sukhbir Kaur, 2025 INSC 197 (12 Feb 2025).
- Pradeep Bhardwaj v. Priya, 2025 INSC 852 (15 Jul 2025).
- Kumari Rekha v. Shambhu Saran Paswan, 2025 INSC 631 (6 May 2025).
- Aashita Singhania Saraf v. State of West Bengal & Ors., Order (29 Apr 2025).
- Rakhi Sadhukhan v. Raja Sadhukhan, 2025 INSC 789 (29 May 2025).
- M.V. Leelavathi v. Dr. C.R. Swamy, 2025 INSC 994 (18 Aug 2025). (Supreme Court Observer)
- See also Ramanuj Kumar v. Priyanka, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 867 (28 Apr 2025).