Analysis of SC's Use of Article 142 in Granting Divorce
- ByAdmin --
- 30 Jun 2025 --
- 0 Comments
The Supreme Court of India holds a pivotal position as the guardian of the Constitution and the apex judicial body. Among its wide-ranging powers, Article 142 of the Indian Constitution stands out for its uniqueness and breadth. It enables the Supreme Court to pass any decree or order necessary for "complete justice" in a matter before it. A notable application of this provision has been in granting divorces, often bypassing prolonged procedural hurdles of matrimonial laws.
Understanding Article 142
Article 142(1) empowers the Supreme Court to exercise its jurisdiction to deliver "complete justice". While this term is not defined in the Constitution, its interpretation has evolved through judicial precedents. The provision is often invoked to address situations where strict adherence to procedural laws would result in injustice.
In matrimonial disputes, the Supreme Court has utilized Article 142 to dissolve marriages irretrievably when the statutory framework under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, or other personal laws, falls short in providing a timely resolution.
Evolution of Judicial Precedents
Early Applications
Initially, the Supreme Court was cautious in employing Article 142 for granting divorce. Matrimonial disputes were largely directed back to the jurisdictional family courts for adjudication under applicable laws.
The Turning Point
The landmark judgment in K. Srinivas Rao v. D.A. Deepa (2013) underscored the need for flexibility. The court, emphasizing the principle of complete justice, declared that prolonged litigations often exacerbated the trauma of estranged couples.
Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage Doctrine
In Narendra v. K. Meena (2016), the apex court dissolved a marriage invoking Article 142, recognizing "irretrievable breakdown of marriage" as a valid ground. Though not explicitly stated in the statutory framework, the court emphasized the futility of forcing unwilling parties to continue in an unworkable relationship.
Recent Developments: Expanding Horizons
A Landmark Shift in 2023
A Constitution Bench in X v. Y (2023) reiterated the court’s authority under Article 142 to dissolve marriages. The judgment highlighted:
- Efficiency over Procedural Rigidity: Traditional matrimonial laws often involve lengthy reconciliation processes that may not yield results. The court asserted that under Article 142, it could prioritize justice over procedure.
- Holistic Examination: In cases where reconciliation efforts had failed and prolonged litigation had caused irreparable harm to the couple and their families, the court found it prudent to dissolve the marriage directly.
- Impact on Parties: Stressing the need for practical relief, the bench noted that procedural delays often obstruct the real objective of justice.
Consideration of Equitable Relief
The court emphasized that the exercise of Article 142 must balance the equities. For instance, adequate provision for maintenance, child custody, and division of property must be ensured to protect the interests of vulnerable parties.
Constitutional and Statutory Implications
While the use of Article 142 showcases the Supreme Court’s ingenuity in bridging legislative gaps, it also raises critical constitutional questions:
- Judicial Overreach: Critics argue that bypassing statutory provisions infringes upon the separation of powers. Matrimonial laws are within the legislative domain, and judicial intervention might undermine this framework.
- Uniformity in Application: The absence of codified parameters for invoking Article 142 leads to subjective interpretations, raising concerns about consistency and predictability.
- Encouraging Legislative Action: The frequent use of Article 142 in matrimonial disputes reflects the inadequacies in existing personal laws. It has prompted debates on codifying "irretrievable breakdown of marriage" as a statutory ground for divorce.
Balancing Justice and Jurisprudence
The Supreme Court’s recourse to Article 142 reflects a commitment to deliver justice while adapting to evolving societal dynamics. However, caution must be exercised to ensure that such interventions do not undermine the legislature’s role or create inequities. To maintain harmony between the branches of government, it is imperative for the legislature to address these gaps through timely amendments.
Conclusion
Article 142 serves as a powerful tool to ensure justice in exceptional cases, particularly in matrimonial disputes where existing laws fall short. The Supreme Court’s decisions underscore its proactive role in addressing the complexities of modern relationships. However, a judicious balance must be maintained to uphold the sanctity of the Constitution’s framework while ensuring equitable and efficient justice. The onus now lies on the legislature to incorporate these judicial insights into statutory reforms, fostering a more cohesive and comprehensive legal framework for matrimonial disputes.
RELATED Blog
0 comments