Divorce was granted to one of the parties to the marriage when he or she proved the other partner's fault, listed as a ground for divorce in the Hindu Marriage Act. The court in a 2006 divorce case — Naveen Kohli vs Neelu Kohli — went a step further.

A three-judge Bench of the apex court found that many a couple were being tied down to dead marriages just because one of them refused to consent to a divorce.

It said, "Once the parties have separated and the separation has continued for a sufficient length of time and one of them has presented a petition for divorce, it can well be presumed that the marriage has broken down. The court, no doubt, should seriously make an endeavour to reconcile the parties; yet, if it is found that the breakdown is irreparable, then divorce should not be withheld."

For, the consequences of preservation in law of an unworkable marriage, "which has long ceased to be effective, are bound to be a source of greater misery for the parties", the three-judge Bench had said while recommending to the legislature to examine introducing "irretrievable breakdown of marriage" as a ground for divorce in the HMA.

Why would the apex court add another ground to the already home-breaking provisions of the Act? Because, it had never viewed in its judgments through the years that HMA was a home-breaking law. For, the judges were of the view that "foundation of a sound marriage is tolerance, adjustment and respecting one another".

The law does not make or break a marriage. Couples need not be married to share a live-in relationship. The question is: Should a couple carry on with a marriage even when the cardinal principles for a harmonious matrimonial life break down — whoever may be at fault, the husband or the wife?

In Naveen Kohli vs Neelu Kohli case, the SC had said the courts need not get swayed by sentiments of a hard case. For, "the ideal couple will have no occasion to go to matrimonial court".