In a recent decision, the Supreme Court turned down an 89-year-old man's request for a divorce from his 82-year-old wife

Justices Aniruddha Bose and Bela M Trivedi, sitting as a bench, noted that the concept of the "irretrievable breakdown of marriage" should not be considered as a one-size-fits-all solution for granting divorces.

"It would not be desirable to accept the formula of 'irretrievable break down of marriage' as a strait-jacket formula for the grant of relief of divorce under Article 142 of the Constitution of India," the Court said.

"Despite the increasing trend of filing the divorce proceedings in the courts of law, the institution of marriage is still considered to be a pious, spiritual, and invaluable emotional life-net between the husband and the wife in the Indian society," the Court said.

In this specific case, the Court also took note of the fact that the wife had shown a willingness to care for her husband and had no intention of parting ways with him in their later years. Additionally, the Court observed that the wife had conveyed her desire to avoid the social stigma associated with being labeled a "divorcee."

Further, the Court expressed the opinion that granting a divorce solely on the basis of an irretrievable breakdown of the marriage would be unjust to the wife.

"In contemporary society, it may not constitute to be stigma but here we are concerned with the respondent’s (wife) own sentiment. Under the circumstances, considering and respecting the sentiments of the respondent wife exercising the discretion in favour of the appellant under Article 142 by dissolving the marriage between parties on the ground that the marriage has irretrievably broken down, would not be doing 'complete justice' to the parties, would rather be doing injustice to the respondent," the Court said.

The Court was hearing a plea filed by an 89-year-old man for divorce.

The Supreme Court was informed that the discord in the couple's relationship began when the husband, a former Indian army serviceman, was posted to Madras (now Chennai) in January 1984, and his wife decided not to join him. Instead, she initially chose to live with her husband's parents and later with her son.

The husband eventually sought divorce on the ground that his wife's refusal to join him in Chennai indicated her intention to permanently terminate cohabitation without justifiable grounds

Initially, a district court granted permission to dissolve the marriage under the Hindu Marriage Act. Subsequently, the Punjab and Haryana High Court overturned the district judge's decision, which led the man (the appellant) to appeal the case before the Supreme Court.

Before the Supreme Court, the appellant argued that the High Court made a mistake by overturning the well-founded divorce decree which had concluded that the wife had been cruel by deserting the appellant without an explanation.

The wife submitted that a prolonged period of separation alone does not amount to an irretrievable breakdown of the marriage. They also stated that she had put in all efforts to honor their sacred relationship.

The Supreme Court eventually agreed with these submissions, observing that the wife had maintained the sacred relationship since 1963 and had nurtured three children, even when the husband displayed hostility towards them.

It, therefore, rejected the the husband's plea to dissolve the marriage and dismissed the appeal.