Supreme Court Dissolves Marriage Citing Irretrievable Breakdown: N.Rajendran vs. S.Valli (2022)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: February 03, 2022

Citation: Not Available

Judges: K.M. Joseph, J., Hrishikesh Roy, 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 complex issue, along with questions regarding the timeliness of appeals in family law cases. This judgment explores the limits of legal intervention in broken marriages and the interpretation of procedural laws. The Supreme Court, while upholding the High Court’s decision on the merits of the case, ultimately dissolved the marriage by exercising its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, citing irretrievable breakdown. The bench consisted of Justice K.M. Joseph and Justice Hrishikesh Roy.

Case Background

The appellant, N. Rajendran, and the respondent, S.Valli, married on August 29, 1999, following Hindu customs. Prior to their marriage, the appellant’s sister married the respondent’s brother on May 24, 1999. The appellant claimed that disputes between his sister and the respondent’s brother led to his sister returning to her parental home. He further stated that the respondent left him on January 18, 2000, to return to her parents’ house and did not come back. The appellant accused the respondent of cruelty and filed for divorce on March 5, 2001. The Family Court granted the divorce on July 23, 2004. The respondent appealed to the Madras High Court on September 9, 2004. The appellant remarried on October 31, 2004, based on the Family Court’s decree. The respondent also filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights on December 27, 2004, which is still pending.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Family Court initially granted the divorce decree in favor of the appellant on July 23, 2004, based on the grounds of cruelty. The respondent appealed this decision to the High Court of Judicature at Madras under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, on September 9, 2004. The High Court reversed the Family Court’s decision, finding that there was no evidence of cruelty. The High Court also held that the appeal was filed within the prescribed time limit, thereby setting aside the decree of divorce passed by the Family Court.

Legal Framework

The case involves several key legal provisions:

• Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955: This section deals with the grounds for divorce, including cruelty. The appellant sought divorce under this provision, alleging cruelty by the respondent.
• Section 15 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955: This section states that after a divorce decree, either party can remarry if there is no right of appeal, the appeal period has expired, or an appeal has been dismissed.
  
  “When a marriage has been dissolved by a decree of divorce and either there is no right of appeal against the decree or, if there is such a right of appeal, the time for appealing has expired without an appeal having been presented, or an appeal has been presented but has been dismissed, it shall be lawful for either party to the marriage to marry again.”
• Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984: This section provides for appeals from the Family Court to the High Court. It specifies that such appeals must be filed within 30 days of the judgment or order.
  
  “(1) Save as provided in sub -section (2) and notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Civil Procedure,1908 (5 of 1908) or in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) or in any other law, an appeal shall lie from every judgment or order, not being an interlocutory order, of a Family Court to the High Court both on facts and on law.
  
  (3) Every appeal under this section shall be preferred within a period of thirty days from the date o f the judgment or order of a Family Court.”
• Section 20 of the Family Courts Act, 1984: This section gives the Family Courts Act overriding effect over any other inconsistent law.
  
  “The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act.”
• Section 29 of the Limitation Act, 1963: This section deals with the applicability of the Limitation Act to special or local laws.
  
  “29. Savings. —(1) Nothing in this Act shall affect section 25 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 (9 of 1872).
  
  (2) Where any special or local law prescribes for any suit, appeal or application a period of limitation different from the period prescribed by the Schedule, the provisions of section 3 shall apply as if such period were the period prescribed by the Schedule and for the purpose of determining any period of limitation prescribed for any suit, appeal or application by any special or local law, the provisions contained in sections 4 to 24 (inclusive) shall apply only in so far as, and to the extent to which, they are not expressly excluded by such special or local law.
  
  (3) Save as otherwise provided in any law for the time being in force with respect to marriage and divorce, nothing in this Act shall apply to any suit or other proceeding under any such law.”

These provisions are crucial in determining the grounds for divorce, the time limits for appeals, and the interplay between different laws.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• The appellant argued that the High Court erred in reversing the Family Court’s decision, which had found the respondent guilty of cruelty.
• He contended that the strained relationship between the respondent and his sister had a significant impact on his marriage.
• The respondent had threatened to commit suicide and refused to return home, demonstrating a lack of interest in maintaining the marital relationship.
• The appellant asserted that the respondent’s appeal to the High Court was filed beyond the 30-day limit prescribed under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984. He argued that Section 29(3) of the Limitation Act, 1963, should apply, which would exclude the application of the Limitation Act to appeals under laws relating to marriage and divorce. Therefore, the respondent could not exclude the time taken to obtain a certified copy of the decree.
• The appellant further contended that the appeal was not “presented” within the meaning of Section 15 of the Hindu Marriage Act. According to the appellant, the appeal was deliberately delayed, and it should be considered as “presented” only when it is brought before the Court on the judicial side and not merely filed.
• The appellant also argued that since he had remarried on October 31, 2004, based on the Family Court’s decree, his second marriage should be considered lawful.

Respondent’s Arguments:

• The respondent contended that there were no grounds for divorce and that her stay at her parental home was due to her pregnancy and her father’s death.
• She argued that the allegations of cruelty were not valid and that she had always been willing to fulfill her marital obligations.
• The respondent argued that Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963, applies to the case and not Section 29(3). She contended that Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, is a special provision within the meaning of Section 29(2), and therefore, the time taken to obtain a certified copy of the order should be excluded.
• The respondent also argued that the word ‘proceeding’ in Section 29(3) must be confined to original proceedings and not appeals.
• She further argued that the interpretation sought to be placed on the word “presented” in Section 15 of the Hindu Marriage Act is incorrect.

Innovativeness of the argument: The appellant’s argument regarding the interpretation of the word “presented” in Section 15 of the Hindu Marriage Act, suggesting it requires not just filing but also moving the appeal before the court, is a novel interpretation.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following issues:

1. Whether the High Court was correct in reversing the decree of the Family Court which granted divorce on the ground of cruelty?
2. Whether the appeal filed by the respondent before the High Court was within the period of limitation as prescribed under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984?
3. Whether the second marriage of the appellant was in accordance with law?
4. Whether the marriage between the appellant and the respondent should be dissolved on the ground of irretrievable breakdown?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

On the applicability of the Limitation Act:

• Lata Kamat v. Vilas [1989 (2) SCC 613]: This case dealt with the interpretation of Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The Supreme Court in the present case distinguished the case by stating that the present case deals with the provisions of the Family Courts Act, in particular, Sections 19 and 20.
• Sm. Sipra Dey v. Ajit Kumar Dey [AIR 1988 Calcutta 28]: The Calcutta High Court’s decision discussed the rationale for changes in Section 29(3) of the Limitation Act, 1963.
• Kuttimalu v. Subramonian [1981 KLT 602]: A single judge of the Kerala High Court held that Section 29(3) applies to original proceedings and not appeals.
• Kunnarath Yesoda v. Manathanath Narayanan [AIR 1985 Ker 220]: The full bench of the Kerala High Court approved the views in Kuttimalu v. Subramonian.

On the dissolution of marriage based on irretrievable breakdown:

• R. Srinivas Kumar v. R. Shametha [(2019) 9 SCC 409]: This case clarified that consent of both parties is not necessary to dissolve a marriage under Article 142.
• Munish Kakkar v. Nidhi Kakkar [(2020) 14 SCC 657]: This case highlighted that a marriage can be dissolved even without the consent of one party if there is no willingness to live together.
• Sivasankaran v. Santhimeenal [2021 SCC Online SC 702]: This case held that a marriage can be dissolved on the grounds of irretrievable breakdown and cruelty.

Legal Provisions Considered:

• Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955: Grounds for divorce, including cruelty.
• Section 15 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955: Conditions for remarriage after divorce.
• Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984: Appeals from Family Court to High Court.
• Section 20 of the Family Courts Act, 1984: Overriding effect of the Family Courts Act.
• Section 29 of the Limitation Act, 1963: Applicability of the Limitation Act to special laws.

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Lata Kamat v. Vilas [1989 (2) SCC 613]*: The court distinguished this case, stating that the present case deals with the provisions of the Family Courts Act, in particular, Sections 19 and 20.
• Sm. Sipra Dey v. Ajit Kumar Dey [AIR 1988 Calcutta 28]*: The court followed the rationale given by the Calcutta High Court regarding the changes in Section 29(3) of the Limitation Act.
• Kuttimalu v. Subramonian [1981 KLT 602]*: The court approved the view of the single judge of the Kerala High Court that Section 29(3) applies to original proceedings and not appeals.
• Kunnarath Yesoda v. Manathanath Narayanan [AIR 1985 Ker 220]*: The court approved the views of the full bench of the Kerala High Court in this case.
• R. Srinivas Kumar v. R. Shametha [(2019) 9 SCC 409]*: The court followed this case which clarified that consent of both parties is not necessary to dissolve a marriage under Article 142.
• Munish Kakkar v. Nidhi Kakkar [(2020) 14 SCC 657]*: The court relied on this case which held that a marriage can be dissolved even without the consent of one party if there is no willingness to live together.
• Sivasankaran v. Santhimeenal [2021 SCC Online SC 702]*: The court followed this case which held that a marriage can be dissolved on the grounds of irretrievable breakdown and cruelty.

The Supreme Court, while affirming the High Court’s decision that there was no cruelty on the part of the respondent, exercised its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to dissolve the marriage. The Court reasoned that the parties had been living separately for over 22 years, and there was no possibility of reconciliation. The Court also considered the fact that the appellant had remarried and had a child from the second marriage. The Court emphasized that its decision was not an approval of the appellant’s conduct but was based on the reality that the marriage had irretrievably broken down.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

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

• The prolonged separation of over 22 years between the appellant and the respondent.
• The absence of any possibility of reconciliation or cohabitation.
• The fact that the appellant had remarried and had a child from the second marriage, making the situation irreversible.
• The need to do complete justice to the parties, considering the reality of their situation.
• The fact that the respondent was found to be blameless.

Fact:Law Ratio:

The Court’s decision was more influenced by the factual circumstances of the case (60%), such as the long separation and the appellant’s remarriage, than by purely legal considerations (40%).

Logical Reasoning

Key Takeaways

• Irretrievable Breakdown: The Supreme Court can dissolve a marriage based on irretrievable breakdown, even if one party does not consent, by exercising its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution.
• Limitation Act: Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act applies to appeals under the Family Courts Act, allowing exclusion of time taken to obtain a certified copy.
• Second Marriage: A second marriage contracted before the expiry of the appeal period is in contravention of Section 15 of the Hindu Marriage Act.
• “Presented” in Section 15: The word “presented” in Section 15 of the Hindu Marriage Act means when the appeal is filed, not when the appeal is moved before the court.

Potential Future Impact: This judgment reinforces the Supreme Court’s willingness to use its constitutional powers to address the realities of broken marriages. It also clarifies the applicability of the Limitation Act to appeals under the Family Courts Act, which is a crucial aspect of procedural law. This case may serve as a precedent for future cases involving irretrievable breakdown of marriage.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the appellant to pay a sum of Rs. 20,00,000 (Rupees twenty lakhs) to the respondent within eight weeks from the date of the judgment. The Court also directed that the appellant would continue to pay Rs. 7,000 per month to the respondent until the said amount is paid. The Court clarified that these directions will not prejudice the rights of the son born in the marriage between the appellant and the respondent in regard to property rights.

Specific Amendments Analysis

Not Applicable

Development of Law

Ratio Decidendi: The Supreme Court held that a marriage can be dissolved on the ground of irretrievable breakdown by exercising its power under Article 142 of the Constitution, even if one party does not consent. The Court also clarified that Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act applies to appeals under the Family Courts Act, allowing the exclusion of time taken to obtain a certified copy. The Court also held that the word “presented” in Section 15 of the Hindu Marriage Act means when the appeal is filed, not when the appeal is moved before the court.

Changes in Previous Legal Positions: This judgment reinforces the trend of the Supreme Court using Article 142 to dissolve marriages that have irretrievably broken down, even without the consent of both parties. It clarifies the application of the Limitation Act to family law appeals, which was a point of contention. The court also clarified the meaning of “presented” in Section 15 of the Hindu Marriage Act.