Welfare & Dignity Of Both Spouses Must Be Prioritized: Supreme Court Grants Divorce To Couple Separated For 16 Years

The Supreme Court while granting divorce to a couple separated for 16 years has reiterated that the welfare and dignity of both the spouses must be prioritized, and that compelling a dead marriage to continue only perpetuates mental agony and societal burden.

The Court was considering an Appeal filed by a Husband against an order wherein the High Court dismissed his Matrimonial Appeal and refused to grant divorce to the parties.

The division bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta observed, "It has been consistently held by this Court that the institution of marriage is rooted in dignity, mutual respect and shared companionship, and when these foundational aspects are irreparably lost, forcing a couple to remain legally bound serves no beneficial purpose. It has been emphasized by this Court in Amutha v. A.R. Subramaniam5 that the welfare and dignity of both the spouses must be prioritized, and that compelling a dead marriage to continue only perpetuates mental agony and societal burden."

The Appellant was represented by Advocate-on-Record Vipin Kumar Jai while the Respondent was represented by Advocate-on-Record Nidhi.

Facts of the Case

The marriage between the Appellant-Husband and Respondent-Wife was solemnized in 2008 and a male child was born out of the wedlock in 2009 who remained in the care and custody of the Wife. The conflict ensued between the parties shortly after the wedding took place and the parties have been living separately since October 2009 itself. The Appellant preferred a Divorce Petition under Section 13(1)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 before the Family Court seeking dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty. The grounds seeking Divorce were that the Wife used to assault and torture the Appellant’s ailing mother with an intention to grab her property. There were further allegations laid by the Husband upon the Wife regarding physically abusing the Husband, having an extra-marital relationship and conducting assault upon the Husband with the help of her brother.

The Divorce Petition was contested by the Wife who denied all the allegations and claimed that the appellant fails to financially provide for her and the minor child and had abandoned her and the minor child since October 2009 and during the stay she faced constant neglect and abuse at the hands of the Husband and his family members.

The Family Court dismissed the Divorce Petition holding that the case set up by him was uninspiring and unworthy of acceptance. It was held that the allegation of cruelty against the Wife as well as her wanting transfer of the ownership of the property remain unsubstantiated. Later, the High Court via the impugned order affirmed the Family Court's decision and held that the Husband has failed to prove cruelty and that granting a decree of divorce on the ground that cruelty stands blended with the irretrievable breakdown of marriage would be equivalent to rewarding the husband for leaving his wife and minor son.

Counsel for the Husband argued that the present case squarely falls within the scope of the principle of “irretrievable breakdown of marriage” as a valid ground for granting divorce, as has been laid down by this Court in multiple judgments including Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan wherein the Court had recognized its power under Article 142 of the Constitution to dissolve marriages where the matrimonial relationship has irretrievably broken down.

Reasoning By Court

The Court at the outset mentioned that it has been consistently held that the institution of marriage is rooted in dignity, mutual respect and shared companionship, and when these foundational aspects are irreparably lost, forcing a couple to remain legally bound serves no beneficial purpose and the same has also been emphasized in Amutha v. A.R. Subramaniam that the welfare and dignity of both the spouses must be prioritized, and that compelling a dead marriage to continue only perpetuates mental agony and societal burden.

It noted that in the present case, due to complete detachment and the prolonged estrangement, there has been an irretrievable breakdown of the marital bond, which cannot be mended by any means and both the parties have spent the prime years of their youth entangled in this marital discord, which has persisted for more than the last fifteen years.

"It is as clear as a day that in the case at hand, the continuance of marriage shall only fuel animosity and litigation between the parties, which runs contrary to the ethos of matrimonial harmony envisioned by the law. This would ring true even more in the light of appellant’s and his family members’ acquittal in the cruelty case preferred by the respondent. It cannot be expected by the appellant to now continue in a marital bond with the respondent, a partner who had filed and fought a false case against her husband and in-laws," the Court observed.

The Court was thus of the view that it is in the best interest of both the parties and their minor child that they be allowed to lead their lives independently and peacefully, free from the shadow of prolonged and futile legal battles.

The Appeal was accordingly allowed.

Cause Title: Pradeep Bhardwaj vs. Priya

Click here to read/ download Order