In law, need to write a new marriage story

📌 Summary:

• Context: The Supreme Court, ruling on a couple living separately for 15 years, said keeping alive a marriage "already decayed and decomposing day by day" serves neither the couple nor society, and that forcing them together would be "cruelty to both parties"
• Core argument: The editorial backs a more nuanced legal framework for marital breakdown and the statutory recognition of "irretrievable breakdown of marriage" (IBM) as a ground for divorce
• Current legal position: Indian law offers two paths — mutual consent (no-fault) and contested (fault-based); IBM is not a statutory ground
• Judicial mechanism: The SC has periodically used its extraordinary powers under Article 142(1) to grant divorce on IBM grounds; in Naveen Kohli vs Neelu Kohli (2006) it urged the government to amend the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 to incorporate IBM
• Costs of inaction (causal chain): A protracted legal battle takes a mental, physical, emotional and financial toll; denying relief because a case does not meet existing criteria amounts to "perpetuity of marriage on paper"
• Solution proposed: Parliament should legislate IBM as a ground for divorce rather than leaving relief to case-by-case use of Article 142

🎯 UPSC Relevance: GS1 Society — institution of marriage and family, changing social norms; GS2 — judicial activism vs legislative responsibility, use of Article 142; reform of personal laws

📝 Prelims Facts:

• Article 142(1) empowers the Supreme Court to pass any order necessary for "complete justice" in a pending case
• Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 governs Hindu marriages; "irretrievable breakdown of marriage" is not currently a statutory ground for divorce
• Naveen Kohli vs Neelu Kohli (2006) recommended legislating IBM

🔑 Key Term: Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage (IBM) — a no-fault ground where a marriage has broken down beyond repair, recognised by the SC via Article 142 but not yet codified in statute