Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage Must Be Made a Ground for Divorce under the HMA

Law and justice must serve a socially beneficial purpose and remain responsive to the changing needs of society. However, the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, does not adequately address certain realities that spouses encounter in their marital lives. One such pressing issue is the irretrievable breakdown of marriage. Despite its frequent recognition and discussion in judicial pronouncements, it has still not been incorporated as an independent statutory ground for divorce under the Act. Courts in several foreign jurisdictions have also recognised this principle in their matrimonial jurisprudence.
In a recent judgment in N. Sridhar Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, the Supreme Court declined to grant a divorce to a Telugu couple despite their marriage having virtually ceased to exist for nearly two decades.
The brief facts of the case are that Dr N. Sridhar Reddy and Geetha Prasanthi were married in 2003 according to Hindu rites and rituals. In 2006, the husband moved to the United Kingdom to pursue his career as a doctor. A few months later, his wife joined him there. However, in 2007, she returned to India for the delivery of their son. According to the husband, despite repeated requests, she declined to return to the UK and join him. Consequently, differences between the spouses gradually escalated into a serious matrimonial dispute. In the meantime, the husband acquired British citizenship through naturalisation after fulfilling the requisite residence requirements.
The fundamental legal difficulty arises from the fact that the Hindu Marriage Act does not recognise irretrievable breakdown of marriage as an independent ground for divorce. Section 13 of the Act, 1955, enumerates the statutory grounds on which either spouse may seek a decree of divorce. These include adultery, cruelty, desertion for a continuous period of at least two years, conversion, mental disorder, certain forms of venereal disease, renunciation of the world and presumption of death. However, the irretrievable breakdown of marriage does not find an express place in this list.
The question that Parliament and the judiciary must seriously address is: What purpose is served by keeping a marriage legally alive when its very foundation has collapsed, and there remains no reasonable possibility of reconciliation? Is it fair to compel two individuals to remain tied to a marital relationship which has ceased to serve any meaningful purpose, merely because the statute does not recognise the breakdown of that relationship as a ground for divorce?
Marriage is undoubtedly an important social institution, and its sanctity must be respected. But the law must also recognise that there are situations in which preserving the legal relationship serves neither the interests of the spouses nor the larger interests of society. Prolonged matrimonial litigation, emotional distress and uncertainty can hardly be regarded as a desirable outcome of the legal process.
Parliament must, therefore, consider amending the Hindu Marriage Act to incorporate irretrievable breakdown of marriage as an independent ground for divorce. The Supreme Court, too, has, in appropriate cases, exercised its extraordinary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to dissolve marriages that have irretrievably broken down. However, such extraordinary judicial intervention cannot be a substitute for a clear statutory provision available to all litigants.
Where a marriage has irretrievably broken down, and all genuine possibilities of reconciliation have been exhausted, the law should facilitate an honourable separation rather than perpetuate a relationship in name alone. Mutual consent, wherever possible, should be encouraged and respected. Ultimately, the law must protect the institution of marriage without turning it into a lifelong legal compulsion when the relationship itself has ceased to exist.