In law, need to write a new marriage story

The Supreme Court saying that keeping alive a marriage which is “already decayed and is decomposing day by day” serves neither the couple nor society is an important intervention in what is often one of the most bitter and wearying legal processes. The two-judge bench that was ruling on the case of a couple that has been living separately for 15 years said that asking them to live together after they’ve been estranged for so long would amount to “cruelty to both the parties”. In thus framing the issue, the Court has underlined the need for a more nuanced approach to the complex issue of marital breakdown.

While the laws in their present form offer two paths to legal separation — mutual consent (no-fault) and contested (fault-based) — the Supreme Court has periodically used its extraordinary powers under Article 142 (1) to widen the framework of divorce and bring in the concept of “irretrievable breakdown of marriage” (IBM). In 2006, while ruling on Naveen Kohli vs Neelu Kohli, it urged the government to “seriously consider bringing an amendment in the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 to incorporate irretrievable breakdown of marriage as a ground for the grant of divorce”. The concerns animating the Court cannot be dismissed: A protracted legal battle can take a toll on the mental, physical, and emotional well-being of the parties involved. The financial implications, too, are often serious. As the Court has rightly said, to prolong an estranged couple’s agony because their case does not meet the criteria laid out in the law amounts to “perpetuity of marriage on paper”.

The judgment serves as a reminder to both the government and Parliament that reform is long overdue. In its 2009 report, the Law Commission recommended the inclusion of IBM, and subsequently, there were two attempts at legislative reform via the Marriage Laws (Amendment) Bills of 2010 and 2013, both of which lapsed. At the same time, reform cannot overlook the realities of a deeply patriarchal society where women often enter divorce proceedings from a position of social and economic disadvantage. Protecting their interests, especially on the questions of property rights, custody, maintenance and residential rights, is paramount. Reform is necessary, but it should not become another instrument for perpetuating inequality.

Overall Analysis

This editorial argues that India’s divorce laws need urgent reform to reflect the realities of modern marriages. It welcomes the Supreme Court’s observation that forcing a couple to remain legally married despite years of separation serves neither the individuals involved nor society. The title itself is metaphorical, suggesting that the law must create a “new story” about marriage—one that recognizes when relationships have irretrievably broken down.

The editorial begins by highlighting the human dimension of marital disputes. By using phrases such as “already decayed and decomposing day by day” and “cruelty to both the parties”, the author emphasizes the emotional and psychological burden of maintaining a marriage that has effectively ended. The language is empathetic and seeks to shift attention from legal technicalities to human suffering.

The discussion then moves to the legal framework governing divorce in India. The author explains that current laws mainly recognize mutual consent and fault-based divorce, while the Supreme Court has repeatedly invoked its constitutional powers to acknowledge the concept of Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage (IBM). The editorial presents this as a practical response to situations where reconciliation is impossible. Through expressions such as “perpetuity of marriage on paper”, the writer criticizes a system that preserves legal status while ignoring social reality.

In the final section, the editorial broadens the debate from judicial intervention to legislative responsibility. It points out that recommendations for reform have existed for years but have not translated into law. At the same time, the author avoids presenting divorce reform as a simple solution. The editorial recognizes the unequal social position of many women in marriage and argues that any legal reform must protect their rights regarding maintenance, property, residence, and child custody. This balanced approach strengthens the argument by combining legal modernization with social justice concerns.

Overall, the article is persuasive because it combines legal reasoning, human empathy, and concern for gender equality. It argues that marriage laws should reflect reality while ensuring that vulnerable spouses are not disadvantaged.

Important Vocabulary (5)

1. Estranged – no longer close or connected; separated emotionally or physically.
2. Irretrievable – impossible to restore, repair, or recover.
3. Protracted – lasting for a long time; prolonged.
4. Perpetuity – an endless or indefinite period.
5. Patriarchal – relating to a social system where men hold primary power and authority.

Conclusion & Tone

The editorial supports the inclusion of Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage as a formal ground for divorce, arguing that the law should recognize when a marriage has effectively ended. However, it stresses that reform must be accompanied by strong safeguards for women, who often face economic and social disadvantages during divorce proceedings.

Tone: Analytical, reform-oriented, empathetic, and balanced.