Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage: Supreme Court Grants Divorce in Rinku Baheti vs. Sandesh Sharda (2024)

LEGAL ISSUE: Can the Supreme Court grant a divorce based on the irretrievable breakdown of marriage, even if one spouse opposes it?
CASE TYPE: Matrimonial Law
Case Name: Rinku Baheti vs. Sandesh Sharda
[Judgment Date]: 19 December 2024

Date of the Judgment: 19 December 2024
Citation: 2024 INSC 1014
Judges: B.V. Nagarathna, J. and Pankaj Mithal, J.

Can a marriage be dissolved when it has irretrievably broken down, even if one spouse objects? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in the case of Rinku Baheti vs. Sandesh Sharda. This case explores the extent of the Supreme Court’s power to grant a divorce under Article 142(1) of the Constitution, particularly when the marital relationship has deteriorated beyond repair. The judgment, authored by Justice B.V. Nagarathna, with Justice Pankaj Mithal concurring, delves into the complexities of marital discord and the court’s role in ensuring complete justice.

Case Background

The case involves a couple, Rinku Baheti (the petitioner-wife) and Sandesh Sharda (the respondent-husband), who married on July 31, 2021. This was the second marriage for both. Marital discord soon arose, primarily due to the husband’s continued involvement with his children, ex-wife, and ailing father. The husband initiated separation discussions, which the wife did not accept. This led to a series of legal battles, including criminal complaints and multiple divorce petitions.

The husband filed a complaint at Police Station Habibganj and before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhopal, alleging mental cruelty by the wife. Subsequently, he filed a divorce petition under Section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA), which was later withdrawn. A second petition for divorce by mutual consent under Section 13B(1) of HMA was also dismissed as the parties had not completed the statutorily mandated period of separation. A third divorce petition was then filed by the husband under Section 13(1)(ia) of the HMA, citing cruelty.

The wife retaliated by filing two criminal cases: one against an employee of the husband’s company and another against the husband and his father, leading to the husband’s arrest and subsequent release on bail. The wife then filed a transfer petition before the Supreme Court, seeking to move the divorce case from Bhopal to Pune. During the pendency of the transfer petition, the husband filed an interlocutory application under Article 142(1) of the Constitution, seeking a divorce on the grounds of irretrievable breakdown of marriage.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The husband initially filed a divorce petition under Section 13(1) of the HMA, which was later withdrawn. He then filed a second petition for divorce by mutual consent under Section 13B(1) of HMA, which was dismissed because the parties had not completed the mandatory one-year separation period. Subsequently, the husband filed a third divorce petition under Section 13(1)(ia) of the HMA, citing cruelty. The wife filed a transfer petition before the Supreme Court to move the case to Pune.

During the pendency of the transfer petition, the husband filed an application under Article 142(1) of the Constitution, seeking a divorce based on the irretrievable breakdown of the marriage. The Supreme Court transferred the case to the Family Court in Pune for the limited purpose of determining alimony and other rights of the wife. The Family Court submitted a report recommending a permanent alimony of Rs. 2 lakhs per month or Rs. 10 crores in lump sum.

The Supreme Court made attempts to mediate the dispute, first through the Supreme Court Mediation Centre, and then through a retired judge of the Supreme Court. However, these attempts were unsuccessful, with the husband stating he was not interested in further discussions with the wife.

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court considered Article 142(1) of the Constitution of India, which empowers the court to pass any order necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it.

Article 142(1) of the Constitution states:

“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.”

The Court also discussed Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA), which deals with divorce on the basis of fault, and Section 13B of the HMA, which deals with divorce by mutual consent.

Section 13(1) of the HMA states:

“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— (ia) has, after the solemnization of the marriage, treated the petitioner with cruelty”

Section 13B(1) of the HMA states:

“Subject to the provisions of this Act a petition for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce may be presented to the district court by both the parties to a marriage together, whether such marriage was solemnized before or after the commencement of the Marriage Laws (Amendment) Act, 1976, on the ground that they have been living separately for a period of one year or more, that they have not been able to live together and that they have mutually agreed that the marriage should be dissolved.”

The court emphasized that while the HMA provides grounds for divorce, Article 142(1) allows the Supreme Court to grant a divorce to do complete justice where the marriage has irretrievably broken down.

Arguments

Respondent (Husband):

• The relationship has irretrievably broken down due to numerous litigations, including criminal complaints filed by the wife, which led to his arrest and custody.
• The wife’s actions have severely damaged his reputation and business.
• The wife has made unreasonable monetary demands despite being financially independent.
• The cumulative impact of the wife’s actions warrants a divorce under Article 142(1).

Petitioner (Wife):

• The application under Article 142(1) is misconceived and the power should not be used when facts are in dispute.
• The parties lived together happily for almost 13 months and there is still a chance of reconciliation.
• She is opposed to a divorce, as it would stigmatize her.
• If the court grants a divorce, she should be allowed to reside in the matrimonial home and receive alimony equal to that of the husband’s first wife.

The respondent’s counsel argued that the numerous litigations and the wife’s criminal complaints, which led to the husband’s arrest, had fractured the relationship beyond repair. They emphasized that the wife’s actions had severely damaged the husband’s reputation and business. The respondent was willing to provide reasonable financial support but opposed the wife’s exorbitant demands.

The petitioner’s counsel contended that the use of Article 142(1) was inappropriate when facts were in dispute and that the parties had lived together for 13 months, indicating the possibility of reconciliation. She argued that a divorce would stigmatize her and that she should receive alimony equivalent to what the husband’s first wife received, given the husband’s wealth.

Submissions Table

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issue for consideration:

1. Whether this Court, upon the application filed by the respondent-husband, can exercise its powers under Article 142(1) of the Constitution of India to grant a decree of divorce to the parties herein on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Court considered the following authorities:

Cases

Judgment

The Supreme Court, exercising its power under Article 142(1) of the Constitution, granted a decree of divorce based on the irretrievable breakdown of the marriage. The Court considered the numerous litigations, the lack of cohabitation, and the categorical statement by the husband that he did not wish to continue the marital relationship.

Treatment of Submissions

Treatment of Authorities

The Court relied on Shilpa Sailesh vs. Varun Sreenivasan, (2023) 5 SCR 165* to affirm its power to grant divorce under Article 142(1) on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage. The Court also considered other cases to understand the nuances of exercising this power.

The Court distinguished the cases of Delma Lubna Coelho vs. Edmond Clint Fernandes, (2023) 4 SCR 473* and Nirmal Singh Panesar vs. Paramjit Kaur Panesar @ Ajinder Kaur Panesar, (2023) 13 SCR 832*, noting that the facts of the present case were different.

The Court followed the ratio of Rakesh Raman vs. Kavita, (2023) 3 SCR 552*, Vikas Kanaujia vs. Sarita, (2024) 7 SCR 933*, Prakashchandra Joshi vs. Kuntal Prakashchandra Joshi @ Kuntal Visanji Shah, (2024) 1 SCR 697*, Vineet Taneja vs. Ritu Johari, MANU/SCOR/93862/2024*, R. Srinivas Kumar vs. R. Shametha, (2019) 12 SCR 873*, Munish Kakkar vs. Nidhi Kakkar, (2019) 15 SCR 169*, N. Rajendran vs. S. Valli, (2022) 16 SCR 498*, K. Srinivas Rao vs. D.A. Deepa, (2013) 2 SCR 126* and Anil Kumar Jain vs. Maya Jain, (2009) 14 SCR 90* to support its decision to grant divorce based on irretrievable breakdown.

The Court referred to Dara Lakshmi Narayana vs. State of Telangana, 2024 INSC 953*, Achin Gupta vs. State of Haryana & Anr., (2024) 6 SCR 129*, Preeti Gupta vs. State of Jharkhand, (2010) 9 SCR 1168*, Dolly Rani vs. Manish Kumar Chanchal, (2024) 5 SCR 510* and Naveen Kohli vs. Neelu Kohli, (2006) 4 SCC 558* to highlight the issues with misuse of criminal law in marital disputes and the need to end dead marriages.

The Court referred to Shakti vs. Anita, Civil Appeal No. 7427/2023*, Kiran Jyot Maini vs. Anish Pramod Patel, (2024) 7 SCR 942*, Vinny Paramvir Parmar vs. Paramvir Parmar, (2011) 9 SCR 371*, Vishwanath Agrawal vs. Sarla Vishwanath Agrawal, (2012) 7 SCR 607* and Rajnesh vs. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324* to discuss the principles for determining permanent alimony.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court emphasized several points that influenced its decision to grant a divorce under Article 142(1):

• Irretrievable Breakdown: The Court was convinced that the marriage had completely failed and there was no possibility of reconciliation, citing the numerous litigations, the lack of cohabitation, and the husband’s clear intention to end the marriage.

• Criminal Complaints: The filing of criminal complaints by the wife against the husband and his family, including serious allegations, had created an irreparable rift in the relationship.

• Lack of Cordiality: The Court noted the lack of mutual love, affection, and respect between the parties, even during the brief periods they lived together.

• No Children: The absence of children from the marriage was a significant factor, as the divorce would only affect the parties themselves.

• Husband’s Intent: The husband’s categorical statement that he did not want to engage in further discussions with the wife demonstrated his firm intention to end the marriage.

Sentiment Analysis of Reasons

Fact:Law Ratio

Decision of the Court

The Supreme Court allowed the husband’s application under Article 142(1) of the Constitution and granted a decree of divorce. The Court also ordered the husband to pay a lump sum of Rs. 3 crores as permanent alimony to the wife. Additionally, the wife was directed to vacate the matrimonial home within a period of three months.

The Court noted that the marriage had irretrievably broken down and that there was no possibility of the parties cohabiting together. The Court emphasized that it was necessary to exercise its power under Article 142(1) to do complete justice to the parties.

Flowchart of the Decision

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Rinku Baheti vs. Sandesh Sharda underscores the Court’s willingness to use its powers under Article 142(1) to grant a divorce when a marriage has irretrievably broken down, even if one party opposes it. The judgment acknowledges that when a marriage has become a mere legal tie without any emotional or social connection, it is in the best interest of both parties to dissolve it. This case also highlights the importance of considering the individual circumstances of each case and the need to ensure that justice is done to both parties.