Long Separation Due To Husband Taking Job In Different City Does Not Constitute Irretrievable Breakdown Of Marriage: Allahabad HC
|The Allahabad High Court upheld the dismissal of a divorce petition stating that the marriage between the parties cannot be said to have irretrievably broken down solely for reason of length of separation suffered.
The Bench dismissed an appeal filed by the husband under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 to challenge the judgment passed by the family court which rejected his petition for divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA).
A Division Bench of Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Donadi Ramesh observed, “Troubled as the marriage may have been and ordinary a relationship between the spouses may remain, it is not for the Court to reach a positive conclusion that personal relationship between the parties has irretrievably broken down solely for reason of length of separation suffered.”
Advocate Anurag Pathak represented the appellant, while Advocate Kamlesh Kumar Singh appeared for the respondent.
The husband alleged repeated instances of cruelty by the wife. These included preventing the husband from visiting his parental home, exhibiting abusive and aggressive behaviour, and failing to inform him of his mother's death, coupled with an alleged assault at the cremation ghat. It was also argued that the marriage had irretrievably broken down, as the parties had been living separately since 1999.
However, the High Court found the allegations of cruelty to be “unsubstantiated and self-serving” due to the lack of specific dates, times, witnesses, and documentary evidence. The Court noted that the husband’s mother had not filed any complaints against the wife; rather, she had executed a will in favour of the wife.
The Court remarked that “there was no independent credible material to establish any of the occurrences described by the appellant, even if such vague and generic description of the occurrence were to be considered, with any seriousness.”
The Bench clarified that the marriage cannot be presumed to be irretrievably broken down as a rule of thumb if the parties had suffered separation for any length of time. The Court further explained that a marriage can be deemed irretrievably broken down only when one party voluntarily deserts the other for an extended period, combined with other circumstances indicating there is no substance in the marriage.
“That relationship having survived, the occurrence of the appellant having moved to Mirzapur and having stayed there for long years, cannot be cited to claim that the marriage between the parties has irretrievably broken down for reason of long separation suffered on account of job taken by the appellant accompanied with the fact that his spouse was required to or continued to take care of the mother of the appellant,” the Bench noted.
Consequently, the Court held that “in absence of the ancillary or attending circumstances shown to establish that the marriage between the parties has irretrievably broken down and in face of the other material and attending circumstances to establish that the respondent remained devoted to the marriage to the extent she continued to take care of the appellant's aged mother even after the appellant had gone out for reason of job taken by him in another district, clearly shows that the marriage has not irretrievably broken down, then faith and hope in the marriage has survived.”
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the appeal.
Cause Title: M v. R (Neutral Citation: 2024:AHC:107634-DB)
Appearance:
Appellant: Advocates Ajay Kumar Singh and Anurag Pathak
Respondent: Advocate Kamlesh Kumar Singh