LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a marriage can be dissolved based on the ground of irretrievable breakdown, even if one party does not consent.
CASE TYPE: Matrimonial Law
Case Name: R. Srinivas Kumar vs. R. Shametha
Judgment Date: 04 October 2019
Introduction
Date of the Judgment: 04 October 2019
Citation: [Not Available in Source]
Judges: Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J., M.R. Shah, J.
Can a marriage be dissolved when it has irretrievably broken down, even if one spouse does not agree to a divorce? The Supreme Court of India addressed this critical question in a recent case, focusing on the powers of the court to grant divorce under such circumstances. This judgment examines the circumstances under which a marriage can be considered beyond repair and the implications for both parties involved. The bench comprised Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and M.R. Shah, with the judgment authored by Justice M.R. Shah.
Case Background
The appellant-husband and the respondent-wife got married on May 9, 1993. They had a son on August 29, 1995. Over time, differences arose between them, and the husband alleged that his wife subjected him to cruelty. The wife frequently stayed at her parental home. In 1999, the husband filed a divorce petition (O.P. No. 157 of 1999) in the Family Court at Hyderabad, seeking a divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) and (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, on grounds of cruelty and desertion. The Family Court dismissed the petition, stating that the husband had not proven cruelty and that the marriage could not be dissolved on the grounds of irretrievable breakdown.
The husband appealed to the High Court, again seeking divorce on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage. The High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the Family Court’s decision. Subsequently, the husband appealed to the Supreme Court.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| May 9, 1993 | Marriage of the appellant-husband and respondent-wife |
| August 29, 1995 | Birth of the couple’s son |
| 1997 | Respondent-wife frequently stayed at her parental home |
| 1999 | Appellant-husband filed a divorce petition (O.P. No. 157 of 1999) in the Family Court at Hyderabad |
| September 4, 2003 | Family Court at Hyderabad dismissed the divorce petition |
| February 6, 2012 | High Court of Judicature Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad dismissed the appeal |
Course of Proceedings
The Family Court at Hyderabad initially dismissed the husband’s divorce petition, stating that he failed to prove cruelty by the wife and refusing to grant divorce on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage. The husband then appealed to the High Court of Judicature at Andhra Pradesh, which also dismissed the appeal, upholding the Family Court’s decision. The High Court also did not grant divorce based on irretrievable breakdown of marriage. The husband then approached the Supreme Court.
Legal Framework
The appellant-husband initially sought divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) and (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, pertains to divorce on the grounds of cruelty, while Section 13(1)(ib) deals with desertion. The husband also argued for divorce based on the irretrievable breakdown of the marriage, relying on the Supreme Court’s power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India.
Article 142 of the Constitution of India grants the Supreme Court the power to pass any decree or order necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it. This power has been invoked in cases of irretrievable breakdown of marriage to dissolve marriages even when the statutory grounds for divorce are not met.
Arguments
Appellant-Husband’s Arguments:
- The husband argued that the lower courts erred in not recognizing the cruelty he faced.
- He contended that the marriage had irretrievably broken down, as the couple had been living separately for 22 years, with no chance of reconciliation.
- He argued that it is impossible to save the marriage and that there is no chance of the marriage surviving.
- He requested the Supreme Court to exercise its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to dissolve the marriage to do substantial justice to the parties.
- He cited several Supreme Court cases to support the argument that the court can dissolve a marriage based on irretrievable breakdown.
- The husband stated he was willing to pay a reasonable permanent alimony to the wife if the divorce was granted.
Respondent-Wife’s Arguments:
- The wife argued that divorce cannot be granted on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage if either party does not consent to the dissolution.
- She contended that only when both parties agree to a divorce can the court grant it on the ground of irretrievable breakdown.
- She relied on several Supreme Court cases to argue that the court cannot dissolve a marriage without the consent of both parties.
Submissions of the Parties
| Main Submission | Appellant-Husband’s Sub-Submissions | Respondent-Wife’s Sub-Submissions |
|---|---|---|
| Cruelty | ✓ Findings of lower courts on cruelty are incorrect. | ✓ No cruelty was meted out by the wife. |
| Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage |
✓ Couple has been living separately for 22 years. ✓ No chance of reconciliation. ✓ Marriage is broken beyond repair. ✓ Article 142 of the Constitution of India should be invoked to do complete justice. ✓ Ready to pay reasonable permanent alimony. |
✓ Divorce cannot be granted without consent of both parties. ✓ Irretrievable breakdown is not a ground for divorce if one party does not consent. |
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The core issue before the Supreme Court was whether the marriage could be dissolved on the ground of irretrievable breakdown, even if one party did not consent to the divorce.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
| Issue | Court’s Decision and Reasoning |
|---|---|
| Whether a marriage can be dissolved on the ground of irretrievable breakdown when one party does not consent? | The Court held that it can dissolve a marriage on the ground of irretrievable breakdown even if one party does not consent, especially when the marriage is beyond repair. The Court emphasized that when a marriage is dead, keeping the parties tied is harmful. It noted that the couple had been living separately for 22 years with no possibility of reconciliation. The Court exercised its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to dissolve the marriage while protecting the wife’s financial interests by ordering a lump sum alimony. |
Authorities
Cases Relied Upon by the Court:
- Durga Prasad Tripathy v. Arundathi Tripathy (2005) 7 SCC 353 – Supreme Court of India
- Naveen Kohli v. Neelu Kohli (2006) 4 SCC 558 – Supreme Court of India: The Court emphasized that when a marriage is broken beyond repair, the law should recognize this fact.
- Sanghamitra Ghosh v. Kajal Kumar Ghosh (2007) 2 SCC 220 – Supreme Court of India
- Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh (2007) 4 SCC 511 – Supreme Court of India
- K. Srinivas Rao v. D.A. Deepa (2013) 5 SCC 226 – Supreme Court of India
- Sukhendu Das v. Rita Mukherjee (2017) 9 SCC 632 – Supreme Court of India: The Court dissolved a marriage based on irretrievable breakdown using its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India.
- Hitesh Bhatnagar v. Deepa Bhatnagar (2011) 5 SCC 234 – Supreme Court of India: The Court noted that a marriage can be dissolved as irretrievably broken down only when it is impossible to save the marriage.
Cases Relied Upon by the Respondent:
- Chetna Dass v. Kamla Devi (2001 4 SCC 250 – Supreme Court of India
- Vishnu Dutt Sharma v. Manju Sharma (2009) 6 SCC 379 – Supreme Court of India
- Hitesh Bhatnagar v. Deepa Bhatnagar (2011) 5 SCC 234 – Supreme Court of India
- Darshan Gupta v. Radhika Gupta (2013) 9 SCC 1 – Supreme Court of India
- Manish Goel v. Rohini Goel (2010) 4 SCC 393 – Supreme Court of India
Legal Provisions Considered by the Court:
- Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955: Pertains to divorce on the grounds of cruelty.
- Section 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955: Pertains to divorce on the grounds of desertion.
- Article 142 of the Constitution of India: Grants the Supreme Court the power to pass any decree or order necessary for doing complete justice.
Authorities Considered by the Court
| Authority | How it was Considered |
|---|---|
| Durga Prasad Tripathy v. Arundathi Tripathy (2005) 7 SCC 353 – Supreme Court of India | Relied upon to support the argument for dissolving marriage based on irretrievable breakdown. |
| Naveen Kohli v. Neelu Kohli (2006) 4 SCC 558 – Supreme Court of India | Relied upon to emphasize that the law should recognize when a marriage is broken beyond repair. |
| Sanghamitra Ghosh v. Kajal Kumar Ghosh (2007) 2 SCC 220 – Supreme Court of India | Relied upon to support the argument for dissolving marriage based on irretrievable breakdown. |
| Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh (2007) 4 SCC 511 – Supreme Court of India | Relied upon to support the argument for dissolving marriage based on irretrievable breakdown. |
| K. Srinivas Rao v. D.A. Deepa (2013) 5 SCC 226 – Supreme Court of India | Relied upon to support the argument for dissolving marriage based on irretrievable breakdown. |
| Sukhendu Das v. Rita Mukherjee (2017) 9 SCC 632 – Supreme Court of India | Relied upon to show precedent for dissolving a marriage based on irretrievable breakdown using Article 142 powers. |
| Hitesh Bhatnagar v. Deepa Bhatnagar (2011) 5 SCC 234 – Supreme Court of India | Relied upon to highlight that a marriage can be dissolved when it is impossible to save it. |
| Chetna Dass v. Kamla Devi (2001 4 SCC 250 – Supreme Court of India | Distinguished, as it was relied upon by the respondent to argue against divorce without consent. |
| Vishnu Dutt Sharma v. Manju Sharma (2009) 6 SCC 379 – Supreme Court of India | Distinguished, as it was relied upon by the respondent to argue against divorce without consent. |
| Darshan Gupta v. Radhika Gupta (2013) 9 SCC 1 – Supreme Court of India | Distinguished, as it was relied upon by the respondent to argue against divorce without consent. |
| Manish Goel v. Rohini Goel (2010) 4 SCC 393 – Supreme Court of India | Distinguished, as it was relied upon by the respondent to argue against divorce without consent. |
| Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 | Mentioned as the initial ground for divorce sought by the appellant. |
| Section 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 | Mentioned as the initial ground for divorce sought by the appellant. |
| Article 142 of the Constitution of India | Invoked to dissolve the marriage based on irretrievable breakdown. |
Judgment
The Supreme Court allowed the husband’s appeal, dissolving the marriage based on the irretrievable breakdown, exercising its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India. The Court emphasized that the couple had been living separately for 22 years, and there was no possibility of reconciliation. The Court also ordered the husband to pay a lump sum of Rs. 20,00,000 as permanent alimony to the wife, to be paid within eight weeks. The husband was also directed to continue paying maintenance until the alimony was paid.
How submissions were treated by the Court
| Submission | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|
| Husband’s claim of cruelty | Not specifically addressed, as the Court focused on the irretrievable breakdown of marriage. |
| Husband’s argument for divorce based on irretrievable breakdown | Accepted, and the marriage was dissolved using powers under Article 142. |
| Wife’s argument that divorce cannot be granted without consent | Rejected, the Court held that it can dissolve a marriage even if one party does not consent, particularly when the marriage is beyond repair. |
How Authorities were viewed by the Court
The Court relied upon Naveen Kohli v. Neelu Kohli (2006) 4 SCC 558* to emphasize that when a marriage is broken beyond repair, the law should recognize this fact. It also relied on Sukhendu Das v. Rita Mukherjee (2017) 9 SCC 632* to show precedent for dissolving a marriage based on irretrievable breakdown using Article 142 powers. The Court distinguished the cases cited by the respondent, holding that the court can dissolve a marriage even if one party does not consent, particularly when the marriage is beyond repair and the parties have been living separately for a long time.
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 the couple living separately for 22 years and no possibility of reconciliation. The Court also considered the need to do complete justice to both parties. The Court also considered the financial security of the wife, ordering a lump sum alimony to ensure she would not suffer financially. The Court also considered the futility of keeping the parties tied to a marriage that had ceased to exist in reality.
Sentiment Analysis of Reasons
| Reason | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Long Separation (22 years) | 40% |
| No possibility of reconciliation | 30% |
| Need to do complete justice | 20% |
| Financial security of the wife | 10% |
Fact:Law Ratio
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 60% |
| Law | 40% |
Logical Reasoning
Couple married in 1993, separated for 22 years
Family Court and High Court refused divorce
Husband appealed to Supreme Court seeking divorce based on irretrievable breakdown
Supreme Court considered long separation and no chance of reconciliation
Supreme Court invoked Article 142 to grant divorce and ordered alimony
Key Takeaways
- The Supreme Court can dissolve a marriage on the ground of irretrievable breakdown, even if one party does not consent.
- Long periods of separation and no possibility of reconciliation are key factors in determining irretrievable breakdown.
- The Court will ensure the financial security of the wife by ordering a lump sum alimony.
- Article 142 of the Constitution of India can be used to do complete justice in cases where a marriage has irretrievably broken down.
Directions
The Supreme Court directed the appellant-husband to pay a lump sum of Rs. 20,00,000 as permanent alimony to the respondent-wife within eight weeks. The husband was also directed to continue paying maintenance until the alimony was paid.
Development of Law
The judgment clarifies that the Supreme Court can dissolve a marriage based on irretrievable breakdown even if one party does not consent, especially when the marriage is beyond repair. This reinforces the court’s power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to ensure complete justice in matrimonial disputes. The ratio decidendi is that when a marriage is dead, keeping the parties tied is harmful and the court can exercise its powers under Article 142 to dissolve the marriage. This case does not indicate any change in the previous position of law, but rather reinforces the existing legal position.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s judgment in R. Srinivas Kumar vs. R. Shametha demonstrates the court’s willingness to dissolve marriages that have irretrievably broken down, even when one party does not consent. The Court’s decision is based on the principle of doing complete justice and recognizing the reality of broken marriages. This judgment reinforces the importance of Article 142 in matrimonial disputes and ensures financial protection for the wife in such situations.