Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage: Supreme Court Grants Divorce in Munish Kakkar vs. Nidhi Kakkar (2019)

Date of the Judgment: 17 December 2019
Citation: 2019 INSC 1234 (This is a hypothetical citation as the actual citation is not available in the source)

Judges: Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J. and K.M. Joseph, J.

Can a marriage that has completely broken down, with no hope of reconciliation, be legally dissolved even if neither party is at “fault”? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in the case of Munish Kakkar vs. Nidhi Kakkar, where a long-standing marital dispute led to a divorce decree based on the irretrievable breakdown of the marriage. This case highlights the complexities of divorce law in India, where the concept of “fault” traditionally plays a significant role. The bench comprised of Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice K.M. Joseph.

Case Background

The marriage between Munish Kakkar (the appellant) and Nidhi Kakkar (the respondent) was solemnized on April 23, 2000, in Jalandhar, according to Hindu rites. The appellant’s family was based in Jalandhar, while the respondent’s family was based in Canada. The parties’ cohabitation was brief, with the respondent frequently traveling between India and Canada. On May 24, 2001, the respondent left for Canada, which the appellant claims was without his consent. The respondent, however, stated that she was attempting to facilitate the appellant’s immigration to Canada. The respondent obtained Canadian citizenship on August 6, 2002, and returned to India on August 16, 2002. No immigration papers were filed for the appellant during this time. After a brief period of cohabitation, the respondent left the common residence on April 15, 2003, following an altercation and returned to Canada.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The appellant filed a petition for divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, on the grounds of cruelty. The Additional District Judge, Nawanshahr, granted a decree of divorce on December 9, 2009. However, the High Court set aside the decree of divorce on February 10, 2011. The High Court found that while the parties lived separately, there was no real discord or cruelty, and the allegations of extra-marital affairs were due to “inflamed passions.” The High Court also stated that irretrievable breakdown of marriage was not a ground for divorce under Indian law. The matter then reached the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The primary legal provision in question was Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, which allows for divorce on the grounds of cruelty. The Supreme Court also considered the concept of irretrievable breakdown of marriage, which is not a statutory ground for divorce in India. The Court noted that it has previously exercised its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to grant divorce on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage in cases where the marriage is found to be a dead letter.

Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955: “Any marriage solemnized, whether before or after the commencement of this Act, may, on a petition presented by either the husband or the wife, be dissolved by a decree of divorce on the ground that the other party has, after the solemnization of the marriage, treated the petitioner with cruelty.”

Article 142 of the Constitution of India: “The Supreme Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree or make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it, and any decree so passed or order so made shall be enforceable throughout the territory of India in such manner as may be prescribed by or under any law made by Parliament and, until provision in that behalf is so made, in such manner as the President may by order prescribe.”

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• The appellant argued that the respondent was not interested in living with him in India and that her actions caused him mental and physical torture.
• He claimed that the respondent had taken away all his stridhan in April 2001.
• The appellant alleged that the respondent was suspicious and maligned his character by accusing him of having liaisons with his colleagues.
• He stated that he had signed immigration papers to save his marriage but that the respondent never submitted them.
• The appellant contended that the respondent went to Canada on improper travel documents and could not apply for his immigration.
• He argued that the marriage had irretrievably broken down due to the respondent’s behavior and lack of willingness to cohabit.

Respondent’s Arguments:

• The respondent claimed that she had travelled to Canada to meet the appellant’s insistence on immigrating there.
• She blamed the appellant for abandoning her and made allegations of dowry, physical assault, and extra-marital affairs.
• She claimed that an unconsented abortion took place when she was taken to a doctor, although she never filed a complaint about it.
• She insisted that she wanted to stay with the appellant and that the marriage could still work.
• She argued that the allegations of extra-marital affairs were due to “inflamed passions” and should not be considered as cruelty.
• She stated that she had stayed in India only to fight the litigation and not returned to Canada.

Analysis of Arguments:

The appellant’s arguments focused on the respondent’s lack of commitment to the marriage, her alleged cruelty, and the irretrievable breakdown of their relationship. The respondent’s arguments, on the other hand, were centered on blaming the appellant for the marital discord, denying any cruelty on her part, and expressing a desire to stay with the appellant. Both parties made serious allegations against each other, including those of extra-marital affairs and physical assault. The respondent’s claim of an unconsented abortion was not supported by any formal complaint or evidence.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the central issue the Court addressed was:

1. Whether the marriage had broken down irretrievably, warranting a divorce, despite the absence of a statutory provision for divorce on this ground under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Supreme Court relied on the following authorities:

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Supreme Court followed the precedent set in R. Srinivas Kumar v. R. Shametha, (2019) 9 SCC 409* which allowed divorce on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage.
• The Court exercised its extraordinary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India* to grant the divorce, emphasizing its role in ensuring complete justice.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court was primarily influenced by the fact that the marriage had irretrievably broken down, with no possibility of reconciliation. The Court noted the prolonged separation, the bitterness between the parties, and the lack of any affection or bonding. The Court also considered the counselor’s report, which indicated that both parties were cynical about the relationship. The Court emphasized that continuing the marriage would only cause further emotional trauma and that it was in the best interest of both parties to end the marriage. The Court was also influenced by the fact that the respondent’s insistence on staying together was not genuine but rather an attempt to frustrate the appellant’s efforts to obtain a divorce.

The Court reasoned that the marriage was a “dead letter” and that continuing it would be fruitless. The Court observed, “The marriage is a dead letter.” The Court also noted the futility of the relationship, stating, “The sooner this comes to an end, the better it would be, for both the parties.” The Court also observed, “There are only bitter memories and angst against each other.” The Court’s decision was driven by the need to do complete justice and to allow both parties to move on with their lives.

Key Takeaways

• The Supreme Court can grant a divorce on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage, even if it is not a statutory ground under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, by exercising its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution.
• This power is exercised in rare cases where the marriage is found to be totally unworkable, emotionally dead, beyond salvage, and has broken down irretrievably.
• The Court will consider the prolonged separation, bitterness between the parties, and lack of any affection or bonding while deciding on such matters.
• The Court emphasized that continuing a dead marriage would cause further emotional trauma to both parties.
• The Court also considered the counselor’s report, which indicated that both parties were cynical about the relationship.
• Parties should reconcile and settle the disputes amicably without further litigation.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that the maintenance of Rs. 7,500 per month being paid by the appellant to the respondent should continue. It was left open for the parties to move appropriate proceedings for either enhancement or reduction of this maintenance. The Court hoped that this aspect could also be reconciled between the parties once a decree of divorce was granted.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the Supreme Court can exercise its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to grant a divorce on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage, even though it is not a statutory ground under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. This case reinforces the principle that the Court can intervene to do complete justice in cases where the marriage is beyond repair and continuing it would be futile. This is a development in the law as it allows the court to grant divorce even when there is no fault of either party.

Conclusion

In the case of Munish Kakkar vs. Nidhi Kakkar, the Supreme Court of India granted a decree of divorce based on the irretrievable breakdown of marriage, exercising its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution. The Court emphasized that the marriage had become a “dead letter” and that continuing it would only cause further emotional trauma to both parties. This judgment highlights the Court’s willingness to intervene in cases where a marriage is beyond repair, even in the absence of a statutory provision for divorce on the ground of irretrievable breakdown. The Court’s decision was driven by the need to do complete justice and to allow both parties to move on with their lives.