India, June 8 -- A recent judgement by a two-judge bench of the Supreme Court of India, which invoked Article 142 of the Constitution to dissolve a 15-year marriage, goes a long way in prising open the white-knuckled grip that the institution of marriage has on society. The bench of justices Sanjay Karol and Augustine George Masih even urged the judiciary to offer effective and timely relief to prolonged marital disputes that were "frozen and stale", stating that doing so will help not only the frustrated spouses but also society. This is indeed true, and far-sighted of the bench. Divorce is still considered a taboo, and as the recent deaths by suicide of Twisha Sharma and Deepika Nagar show us, women who are forced to stay on in violent and abusive marital homes pay a heavy price. This taboo is a collective failure of our imagination, and till it remains, it will continue to claim the psychological, physical and emotional well-being of everyone who wishes to exit a marriage, but cannot. Among those who do reach the courts to seek a divorce, the process is marred by inordinate delays, large financial costs and often, acrimony and slander, all of which may result in a "hollowness in life", the judges presciently stated. To be sure, the bench made it clear that it was not questioning the sanctity of marriage per se, but simply adjudicating on the facts of the case. In this instance, the bench observed, "the parties have lived separately for far too long a period of time and there is no sanctity left in the marriage." By urging the lower courts to dispose of such long-pending cases, the bench also makes a valid case for the judicial system to review its own efficaciousness in tackling similar cases. Make no mistake, this is not an indictment of divorce, but of situations where both parties are made to wait interminably. The bench acknowledged that courts should ordinarily strive to preserve the institution of marriage, but drew an important distinction between the principle and individual interests, especially when bound in a relationship that had ceased to exist in any meaningful sense. Article 142, strikingly, grants the top court the power to pass any order to ensure "complete justice". Every person should be able to flourish in a free and independent environment, the bench stated. Now, if only both parties came out unscathed from a divorce with equal access to resources, inheritance, and freedom from social opprobrium....