Irretrievable Break Down Of Marriage Is Sufficient Ground For Dissolution Of Marriage; Forcing Couple To Live Together Prolongs Their Misery: SC

The Supreme Court held that an irretrievable break down of marriage is sufficient ground for dissolution of marriage as forcing couple to live together serves no purpose.

The Court was dealing with a Civil Appeal filed by the wife against the Order of the Madras High Court, Madurai Bench by which the husband’s Appeal was allowed and a Decree of Divorce was granted on the ground of cruelty.

The two-Judge Bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Prasanna B. Varale observed, “Although irretrievable breakdown of marriage is not a statutory ground for divorce under the HMA, this Court has, in appropriate cases, invoked its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to grant relief where the marriage is beyond repair. In Naveen Kohli (Supra), this Court observed that when a marriage has irretrievably broken down, forcing the parties to remain together serves no purpose and only prolongs their misery.”

Senior Advocate V. Mohana appeared for the Appellant/wife while Senior Advocate Haripriya Padmanabhan appeared for the Respondent/husband.

In this case, the Appellant-wife and Respondent-husband got married in 2002 and thereafter, the wife moved to Chandigarh and secured employment as an Engineer in the same company as the husband. Few months later, the wife conceived a child and hence, she returned to her parental home for the delivery of the child. In 2003, she gave birth to a female child and when the husband requested her to return to the matrimonial home, she allegedly refused. Consequently, the husband issued a legal notice for reunion to which the wife replied with allegations against him. Thereafter, the husband filed a Petition for restitution of conjugal rights and during its pendency, the wife agreed to resume cohabitation and joined him.

The couple subsequently moved to Bengaluru, however, the husband alleged that his wife treated him with cruelty during this period. Eventually, the Petition was dismissed for default and the wife once again left the matrimonial home allegedly without informing the husband. The husband claimed that this desertion, combined with the mental anguish caused by her absence during the demise of his father, amounted to cruelty. Consequently, he filed a Divorce Petition in 2010 on the grounds of cruelty, but the same was dismissed. His Appeal was also dismissed by the First Appellate Court and then he approached the High Court and his Appeal was allowed, by granting Divorce Decree. Being aggrieved, the wife went to the Apex Court.

The Supreme Court in the above regard, said, “The fact that the parties have been living separately for two decades now further reinforces the conclusion that the marriage is no longer viable. Prolonged separation, as observed in K. Srinivas Rao vs. D.A. Deepa, creates a presumption of the marriage having irretrievably broken down. In this case, the parties have not shared a marital life since 2004, and all attempts at reconciliation have failed.”

The Court remarked that the Marriage is a relationship built on mutual trust, companionship, and shared experiences and when these essential elements are missing for an extended period, the marital bond becomes a mere legal formality devoid of any substance.

“This Court has consistently held that prolonged separation, coupled with inability to reconcile, is a relevant factor in deciding matrimonial disputes. In the present case, the length of separation and the evident animosity between the parties make it clear that there is no possibility of the marriage being revived”, it added.

Furthermore, the Court noted that, prolonging a dead marriage serves no interest and only perpetuates the agony of the parties involved.

“It is evident from the record that continuation of the marriage would only lead to further animosity and litigation, causing harm to both parties. The appellant’s insistence on reconciliation appears to be more of a strategy to prolong the proceedings rather than a genuine effort to revive the relationship”, it added.

The Court also remarked that, forcing a marriage to continue when it has become a source of unhappiness and conflict, undermines the very purpose of the institution of marriage and in this case, the interests of both the parties are best served by allowing both parties to move on with their lives independently.

“… cruelty, long separation, and irretrievable breakdown of marriage, as established in this case, and thus, provide sufficient justification for dissolving the marriage”, it reiterated.

The Court added that the financial independence of a party does not preclude the High Court from granting maintenance if it is necessary to secure dignity, social standing, and financial stability post-divorce, especially in cases where the marriage has subsisted for a long period.

“It is undisputed that both, the appellant and the respondent are software engineers and were earning handsomely at the time of their marriage more than two decades ago. It is reasonable to infer that their respective incomes must have increased substantially over the years. However, considering the dynamics of their separation and the financial burdens the appellant may have borne during the protracted litigation, this Court finds it necessary to award her a lumpsum permanent alimony of Rs. 50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty lakhs only) to secure her financial independence and ensure that she can lead her life with dignity”, it further directed.

The Court emphasised the concept of maintenance and alimony, saying that it encompasses a right to sustenance that allows the spouse to live in a manner suited to her status and standard of living, and the aim is not to penalise the husband.

“Although the daughter may be of an age where she is approaching independence, the financial support provided through this judgment will be instrumental in meeting her educational needs as well as expenses related to her future marriage. A sum of Rs. 50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty lakhs only) is, therefore, awarded to the daughter for these purposes”, it also directed.

The Court concluded that, granting a lumpsum as permanent alimony ensures finality and reduces the scope for future litigation between the parties and while the Appellant is presumably capable of earning, she has undoubtedly faced financial and emotional setbacks due to the prolonged litigation and separation and similarly, the financial provision for the daughter ensures her welfare is not compromised due to the breakdown of the marital relationship between her parents.

Accordingly, the Apex Court dismissed the Appeal, upheld the Divorce Decree, and directed the husband to pay Rs. 50 lakhs each to the wife and daughter.

Cause Title- ABC v. XYZ (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 1033)

Appearance:

Appellant: Senior Advocate V. Mohana, AOR S. Ramamani, Advocates C Rajaram, and Shashi Panwar.

Respondent: Senior Advocate Haripriya Padmanaban, AOR Raghunatha Sethupathy B, Advocates Prabu Ramasubramanian, Manoj Kumar A., M. Vishal Sundaramughan, Aditi Gupta, and Mahendhran T.

Click here to read/download the Judgment