Article 142: Supreme Court’s Evolving Matrimonial Jurisprudence

Supreme Court’s Contemporary Approach through Recent Matrimonial Jurisprudence

INTRODUCTION-

Article 142 of the Constitution of India vests the Supreme Court with extraordinary power to “pass such decree or make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it.” Conceived as a constitutional safety valve, Article 142 was intended to enable the Court to transcend procedural or statutory limitations where strict adherence to law would result in injustice. Over the decades, the exercise of Article 142 has evolved from a sparingly used equitable power into a substantive judicial tool for resolving complex human disputes, particularly in matrimonial matters. The recent observations of the Supreme Court highlighted in the cases of Sau. Jiya v. Kuldeep (2025 INSC 135) and Pradeep Bhardwaj v. Priya (2025 INSC 852) exemplify this evolution and offer critical insight into the contemporary judicial philosophy governing Article 142 of the Constitution of India.

ARTICLE 142: FROM EXCEPTIONAL POWER TO EQUITABLE JURISDICTION-

Historically, Article 142 was exercised in rare circumstances to prevent manifest injustice. The Court repeatedly cautioned that the provision could not be used to supplant substantive law. However, changing social realities, docket explosion, and prolonged litigation—especially in family disputes—have compelled the Court to recalibrate its approach.

In matrimonial litigation, statutory law under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 still does not recognise irretrievable breakdown of marriage as an independent ground for divorce. Parliament’s inaction on this front has left thousands of litigants trapped in dead marriages for decades. It is within this vacuum that Article 142 has emerged as a judicial instrument of pragmatic justice.

In Sau. Jiya, the Supreme Court was confronted with a marriage that had effectively collapsed within two months of cohabitation, followed by prolonged litigation, remarriage of the husband, and a complete erosion of matrimonial ties. While the decree of divorce had already been upheld by the High Court, the dispute before the Supreme Court centred primarily around maintenance and permanent alimony.

What is notable is not merely the outcome, but the method adopted by the Court. The Supreme Court consciously refrained from re-adjudicating allegations of cruelty and instead focused on the ground reality—i.e., the irretrievable breakdown of the marriage, passage of time, and the impossibility of restoring marital harmony. Invoking its equitable jurisdiction, the Court awarded a one-time lump sum permanent alimony of ₹10 lakhs, overriding the inadequate maintenance previously granted under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The Court explicitly stated that such relief was necessary to “serve the purpose of equity and meet the ends of justice,” thereby illustrating Article 142’s role as a corrective mechanism where statutory rules are remediless. This judgment reflects a growing judicial inclination to prioritise finality, dignity, and economic security over prolonged technical adjudication.

The observations of the Supreme Court highlighted in the case of Pradeep Bhardwaj represent an even more assertive exercise of Article 142. Here, despite concurrent findings of the Family Court and High Court refusing divorce, the Supreme Court dissolved the marriage solely on the ground of irretrievable breakdown. The parties had been living separately for over sixteen years. Mediation failed. Criminal proceedings had culminated in acquittal. Yet, no statutory ground for divorce was technically established.

Relying on precedents such as Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan, the Court held that forcing parties to remain legally bound in a marriage that has long ceased to exist would amount to a “travesty of justice.” Importantly, the Court clarified that Article 142 is not exercised to reward wrongdoing, but to prevent continued injustice caused by the mechanical application of law. In addition to dissolving the marriage, the Court enhanced maintenance to ₹15,000 per month, ensuring that equitable relief did not come at the cost of financial vulnerability of the wife and child.

EMERGING JUDICIAL TRENDS IN THE EXERCISE OF ARTICLE 142-

From the above-mentioned judgments, several clear trends emerge:

1. Recognition of Social Reality over Legal Fiction – The Supreme Court increasingly acknowledges that a marriage existing only on paper serves no social or constitutional purpose.
   
   

2. Article 142 as a Substitute for Legislative Vacuum – In the absence of statutory recognition of irretrievable breakdown, Article 142 is being consciously employed to fill the gap—without formally rewriting the law.
   
   

3. Shift from Fault-Based to Consequence-Based Justice – Rather than obsessing over who is at fault, the Court focuses on the consequences of prolonged litigation, emotional exhaustion, and social stagnation.
   
   

4. Integration of Equitable Financial Relief – Dissolution of marriage under Article 142 is almost invariably accompanied by maintenance or permanent alimony, ensuring that equity remains bilateral, not unilateral.
   
   

5. Institutional Preference for Finality – The Court demonstrates increasing impatience with endless matrimonial litigation and uses Article 142 to bring quietus to disputes that have outlived their purpose.

CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITS AND SELF-IMPOSED RESTRAINT-

Despite this expansion, the Supreme Court continues to assert that Article 142 is not a parallel source of substantive law. The power is exercised sparingly, primarily where:

• Litigation has continued for an inordinately long period
• All efforts at reconciliation have failed
• Continuation of marriage would perpetuate injustice
• Statutory remedies are demonstrably inadequate

This self-regulation preserves constitutional balance while ensuring justice remains humane.

CONCLUSION:-

The recent jurisprudence signals a decisive transformation in the Supreme Court’s understanding of “complete justice.” Article 142 is no longer viewed merely as an exceptional escape hatch but as a constitutional conscience clause, particularly in family law. The judgments of Sau. Jiya and Pradeep Bhardwaj reaffirm that the Supreme Court’s ultimate duty is not to preserve legal relationships at all costs, but to safeguard dignity, autonomy, and substantive justice. Until Parliament addresses irretrievable breakdown legislatively, Article 142 will continue to function as the Court’s most potent tool to dissolve dead marriages and restore human equilibrium. In this sense, Article 142 has evolved from an extraordinary power into an instrument of constitutional compassion—used carefully, consciously, and decisively.