New Delhi, June 4 -- Emphasising that courts should not allow parties to remain trapped in "stale and frozen" matrimonial relationships, the Supreme Court has urged the judiciary to bring prolonged marital disputes to a close by granting effective relief where a marriage has irretrievably broken down, observing that such an approach serves not only the interests of the estranged spouses but also those of society at large. A bench of justices Sanjay Karol and Augustine George Masih said that keeping dead marriages alive through years of litigation only perpetuates frustration and emotional distress while denying individuals the opportunity to rebuild their lives. "It is in the best interest of parties and the society if ties are severed between parties in cases where litigation has been pending for a considerably long period of time," the bench held in its June 2 judgment. The court added that prolonging a matrimonial relationship that has ceased to exist in substance "would further lead not only to escalation of frustration in a dead relationship" but also create "sociological, psychological and mental hollowness in life", preventing individuals from flourishing in a free and independent environment. It said that matrimonial litigation pending for years "needs to be put to end by granting effective release to the parties from a stale and frozen relationship." The observations came while the court exercised its extraordinary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to dissolve a marriage between two doctors employed in government service who had been living separately for more than 15 years. The dispute arose from a matrimonial case in which the husband had sought divorce. Although the parties were legally married, they had not cohabited for over a decade and a half. Repeated attempts at reconciliation failed, and the litigation continued through multiple judicial forums before reaching the Supreme Court. Examining the record, the bench noted that despite assertions by the wife that she had relocated to be closer to her husband, no evidence supported such a claim. On the contrary, the material on record showed that she continued to reside and work in Gujarat, while the husband was employed in Rajasthan. The court found no indication that either party genuinely intended to resume marital life. The bench further noted that there were no children from the marriage and that both parties were financially independent government doctors, factors that weighed in favour of dissolving the marriage....