Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage: Supreme Court Grants Divorce in Vikas Kanaujia vs. Sarita (2024)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 10 July 2024
Citation: 2024 INSC 517
Judges: Vikram Nath, J. and Satish Chandra Sharma, J.

Can a marriage be dissolved when it has irretrievably broken down, even if one spouse opposes it? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in the case of *Vikas Kanaujia vs. Sarita*. The Court, exercising its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, granted a divorce, emphasizing that the marriage had completely failed and there was no possibility of reconciliation. This judgment highlights the court’s willingness to prioritize the practical realities of a broken marriage over the formal legal ties.

The bench consisted of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma. The judgment was authored by Justice Vikram Nath.

Case Background

Dr. Vikas Kanaujia (the Appellant) and Dr. Sarita (the Respondent) married on February 20, 2002, according to Hindu rites. The Respondent moved to her marital home in Meerut. The Appellant claimed that the relationship became strained as the Respondent allegedly refused marital obligations and misbehaved with his mother. On February 22, 2002, the Respondent left for her paternal home but returned on March 4, 2002. They then went to Udhampur, where the Appellant worked, but returned on March 11, 2002. On March 17, 2002, the Respondent left her marital home again and has since resided at her paternal home.

The Appellant attempted to bring the Respondent back, but failed. He then filed a suit for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA). The Respondent filed an application for maintenance under Section 24 of the HMA. Subsequently, the Appellant filed for divorce under Section 13 of the HMA, citing cruelty, based on the Respondent’s refusal to fulfill marital obligations and her misbehavior with his family. The Respondent claimed that the Appellant and his family were unhappy with the marriage from the start and had demanded dowry.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Family Court in Meerut initially granted a decree of divorce to the Appellant on December 20, 2006, citing cruelty by the Respondent for initiating false criminal proceedings. The Respondent then appealed to the High Court of Allahabad. The High Court, on August 22, 2019, overturned the Family Court’s decision, stating that the parties had not been living separately by mutual consent, but because the Appellant refused to cohabit with the Respondent. The High Court rejected the plea of irretrievable breakdown of marriage. This led the Appellant to appeal to the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The case primarily involves the interpretation of Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, which deals with grounds for divorce, including cruelty. The Supreme Court also invoked Article 142 of the Constitution of India, which grants the Court the power to pass orders necessary to do complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it. The Court also referred to its previous judgment in *Shilpa Shailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan* [2023 SCC OnLine SC 544], which held that the Court can dissolve a marriage on the ground of irretrievable breakdown, even if one party opposes it, to ensure complete justice.

Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 states the grounds for divorce. The relevant portion, as per the judgment, is not quoted verbatim.

Article 142 of the Constitution of India empowers the Supreme Court to pass decrees or orders necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• The Appellant argued that the Respondent had caused him cruelty by not fulfilling her marital obligations and misbehaving with his family members.
• He contended that the marriage had irretrievably broken down due to the long separation and multiple legal battles.
• The Appellant claimed that the Respondent’s claim of willingness to live together was false and intended to harass him and delay the proceedings.
• He relied on the fact that they had lived together for a very short period of time and that the relationship had become bitter due to ongoing litigation.

Respondent’s Arguments:

• The Respondent argued that she was always willing to live with the Appellant and that she had not deserted him.
• She claimed that the Appellant and his family were unhappy from the start and had demanded dowry.
• She contended that the separation was not by her free will but because the Appellant refused to cohabit with her.
• The Respondent maintained that the marriage should not be dissolved as she believes in its sanctity.

The innovativeness of the argument of the Appellant was that he was able to persuade the court to use its power under Article 142 to dissolve the marriage, even though the specific ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage was not a ground for divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

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

1. Whether the Supreme Court can grant a divorce based on the irretrievable breakdown of marriage, even if one spouse objects, by exercising its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

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

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 Shilpa Shailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan [2023 SCC OnLine SC 544]*, which allowed for divorce on the grounds of irretrievable breakdown under Article 142.
• The Court also followed Rajib Kumar Roy vs Sushmita Saha [2023 SCC OnLine SC 1221]*, where the Court had exercised its power under Article 142 to dissolve a marriage due to long separation.
• The Court applied the power conferred by Article 142 of the Constitution of India to grant the decree of divorce.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following factors:

• The prolonged separation of 22 years, which indicated a complete breakdown of the marital relationship.
• The multiple legal battles between the parties, which demonstrated a lack of any possibility of reconciliation.
• The fact that the parties had lived together for a very short period of time (only 43 days in total).
• The Court’s belief that the Respondent’s claim of willingness to live together was not genuine and was intended to delay the proceedings.
• The Court’s power under Article 142 of the Constitution to do complete justice, which allowed it to grant divorce despite one party’s objection.

Fact:Law Ratio

The Court’s decision was influenced more by the factual circumstances of the case (long separation, failed reconciliation attempts, and bitter relationship) than by purely legal considerations.

Logical Reasoning

Key Takeaways

• The Supreme Court can grant a divorce based on the irretrievable breakdown of marriage, even if one spouse objects, by exercising its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution.
• Prolonged separation, multiple legal battles, and lack of genuine willingness to reconcile are strong indicators of irretrievable breakdown.
• The Court prioritizes the practical realities of a broken marriage over the formal legal ties.
• This judgment reinforces the principle that the Court can intervene to do complete justice and dissolve a marriage that has ceased to exist in substance.
• The court did not grant any alimony considering the fact that both the parties were qualified medical professionals and had sufficient and equal earnings.

Directions

The Supreme Court did not provide any specific directions other than setting aside the High Court order and granting the decree of divorce.

Specific Amendments Analysis

There was no discussion of specific amendments in this judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the Supreme Court, in exercise of its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, can grant a decree of divorce on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage, even if one party opposes it. This is a reiteration of the position taken in *Shilpa Shailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan*, and it reinforces the Court’s willingness to prioritize the practical realities of a broken marriage over the formal legal ties. This case does not introduce any new legal principles but applies the existing principle to a new set of facts.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in *Vikas Kanaujia vs. Sarita* underscores the Court’s willingness to dissolve marriages that have irretrievably broken down, even when one party objects. By invoking Article 142 of the Constitution, the Court prioritized the realities of a failed marriage over strict legal formalities. This decision reinforces the principle that the Court can intervene to do complete justice and dissolve a marriage that has ceased to exist in substance. The Court’s focus on the prolonged separation, multiple legal battles, and lack of genuine reconciliation highlights the factors that can lead to a finding of irretrievable breakdown.