Dr. Shivani Katara
In India, the river of divorce no longer seems to flow slowly—it now appears swift and forceful. Sitting on its banks, we cannot merely look at statistics; we must listen to the echoes of shattered hopes flowing through broken homes, children’s lives, and courtrooms. Traditionally, India’s divorce rate has been considered low—often cited at around 1 percent—but this figure does not fully capture the lived pain or the changing social behavior beneath it. In urban centers, signs point to a 30–40 percent rise in divorce cases over the past decade, and the growing burden of cases has made it necessary to increase the number of family courts.
Divorce in India is no longer just a private decision or a story of familial failure. It has become a social reality that simultaneously affects courtrooms, children’s psychology, and society’s collective conscience. This trend is now spreading to smaller towns and rural areas as well. Courts bear witness to the fact that marriage is no longer viewed merely as a social duty to be endured, but as a question of dignity, mental peace, and personal respect.
Changing Causes, a Changing Judicial Outlook
The reasons behind divorce cases reaching courts today are far more complex than before. Economic independence—especially of women—has emerged as the most significant factor in this shift. Educated and self-reliant women are no longer willing to carry marriages marked by humiliation, neglect, or mental abuse. This is why a large number of petitions in family courts are being filed by women.
For the judiciary, this change has not been easy. For a long time, Indian courts prioritized the stability of the institution of marriage, emphasizing reconciliation, compromise, and reunion. However, in recent years, a humane shift is visible in judicial language. Several judgments have acknowledged that if a marriage has completely broken down emotionally, forcing two individuals to live together merely due to social pressure is not justice.
Family courts regularly encounter cases where spouses have been living separately for years, communication has completely broken down, yet the marriage is still considered legally alive. In such situations, judges face a moral dilemma: whether to attempt to save the marriage or to grant individuals the freedom to live a dignified life. This dilemma is not resolved in law books, but in the judge’s conscience.
Courts and the Future of Children
The heaviest burden of divorce falls on children, and the judiciary is well aware of this reality. Recent studies indicate that children of divorced parents face higher risks of anxiety, depression, behavioral problems, and social isolation. In the Indian context, this becomes even more complex, as children must deal not only with parental separation but also with social commentary and stigma.
During custody proceedings, courts repeatedly confront the question: what truly constitutes the child’s best interest? Is living with the financially stronger parent sufficient, or is emotional stability more important? In many cases, judges have observed that ongoing parental conflict causes deep harm to a child’s mental health.
In real-life scenarios where parents continue to weaponize legal battles against each other even after divorce, the child is reduced to merely a “case.” Courts are gradually realizing that issuing orders alone is not enough; counseling, co-parenting frameworks, and sensitive oversight are also essential.
Judicial Dilemmas and Courtroom Emotions
From the outside, divorce cases may appear technical, but inside the courtroom they are deeply emotional. Amid lawyers’ arguments, the echoes of years of silence, humiliation, and broken trust often resound. For judges, it is never easy to determine who is speaking the truth and who is turning personal suffering into legal strategy.
In many instances, couples seek divorce but retreat under family and social pressure, only to return to court later. In some cases, mutual consent divorce petitions are filed, but conflicts intensify later over issues such as custody or maintenance. In such situations, the judiciary ceases to be merely an enforcer of law and becomes a kind of moral mediator.
Another major challenge for the judicial system is the overwhelming burden on family courts. With limited time and resources, it becomes difficult to provide every case the sensitivity it deserves. Yet many judges are increasingly clarifying in their orders that saving a marriage is meaningful only when respect and mental well-being are preserved.
Society, Women, and a New Definition of Relationships
The rise in divorce carries a profound message for Indian society. It is not merely a story of broken relationships, but of relationships being redefined. Women are initiating divorce more often today because they have options—education, employment, and self-reliance. However, they still pay a social price for this initiative.
In rural and semi-urban India, divorce may appear less visible in legal terms, but living separately, returning to the parental home, or informal separation is becoming increasingly common. This affects the elderly, alters the structure of joint families, and limits children’s social worlds.
The new generation views marriage not as the ultimate goal, but as one phase of life. While this perspective promotes personal freedom, it also brings challenges of loneliness and social distance. The judiciary cannot stop this transformation, nor can it fully direct it—but it can humanize it.
Ultimately, the question is not why divorce is increasing, but how we respond to it. Solutions will not emerge solely from changing laws. Mandatory counseling in courts, mental health support for children, encouragement of co-parenting, and strengthening the capacity of family courts are essential. Society too must move beyond viewing divorce only as failure and instead understand it as a difficult, yet sometimes necessary, decision.
For the judiciary, this is a time for sensitive justice—where decisions are based not only on legal provisions, but on human suffering, children’s futures, and the long-term health of society. If courts, society, and families can together manage this change with wisdom, perhaps human dignity can still be preserved amid breaking relationships.
(Author is a PhD from Delhi School of Economics)