LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a marriage can be dissolved on the grounds of irretrievable breakdown, even when one party does not consent. CASE TYPE: Civil, Matrimonial. Case Name: Subhransu Sarkar vs. Indrani Sarkar. Judgment Date: September 14, 2021.
Introduction
Date of the Judgment: September 14, 2021
Citation: Civil Appeal No. 5696 of 2021 (@ SLP (C) No.11747 of 2017)
Judges: Justice L. Nageswara Rao and Justice B.R. Gavai
Can a marriage be legally ended if it has completely broken down, even if one spouse wants to stay married? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this complex issue in a case where a couple had been living separately for over 16 years. The Court, exercising its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, dissolved the marriage, despite the wife’s desire to continue the relationship. This decision highlights the court’s recognition of “emotionally dead” marriages and the need to provide closure in such situations. The majority opinion was authored by Justice L. Nageswara Rao, with Justice B.R. Gavai concurring.
Case Background
The appellant, Subhransu Sarkar, and the respondent, Indrani Sarkar (nee Das), were married on March 2, 1997, under the Special Marriage Act, 1954. Later, on December 7, 2000, they solemnized their marriage again under Hindu rites and customs. In 2007, the appellant filed a suit for dissolution of marriage before the District Judge, Alipore, alleging cruelty and desertion by the respondent. The appellant claimed that the respondent insisted on him living separately from his parents, misbehaved with his in-laws, and frequently left their matrimonial home. He also alleged physical assault during holidays in Puri and Shillong. The respondent denied these allegations and accused the appellant of adultery and excessive alcohol consumption. Both the Trial Court and the High Court dismissed the appellant’s suit, stating that he could not prove cruelty.
Timeline:
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| March 2, 1997 | Marriage registered under the Special Marriage Act, 1954. |
| December 7, 2000 | Marriage solemnized under Hindu rites and customs. |
| March 5, 2007 | Appellant filed a suit for dissolution of marriage before the District Judge, Alipore. |
| – | Trial Court dismissed the suit. |
| – | High Court dismissed the appeal upholding the Trial Court’s decision. |
| September 14, 2021 | Supreme Court dissolved the marriage. |
Course of Proceedings
The appellant initially filed a suit for divorce in the District Court of Alipore, which was dismissed. Subsequently, the appellant appealed to the High Court of Calcutta, which also dismissed the appeal, upholding the Trial Court’s decision. The High Court agreed with the Trial Court that the appellant had failed to establish cruelty by the respondent. The appellant then approached the Supreme Court of India.
Legal Framework
The Supreme Court primarily exercised its power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to dissolve the marriage. Article 142 empowers the Supreme Court to pass any decree or order necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter before it. The Court also considered previous judgments where it had used this power to dissolve marriages that had irretrievably broken down.
Arguments
Appellant’s Arguments:
- The appellant, represented by Mr. Nikhil Nayyar, argued that the marriage had irretrievably broken down as the parties had been living separately for over 16 years.
- He cited the judgments in Sukhendu Das v. Rita Mukherjee and Munish Kakkar v. Nidhi Kakkar, where the Supreme Court had dissolved marriages under Article 142 of the Constitution due to irretrievable breakdown.
Respondent’s Arguments:
- The respondent, represented by Amicus Curiae Mr. Ranjan Mukherjee, insisted on continuing the marriage.
- She was not convinced that an unworkable marriage should be terminated.
- The respondent also had to take care of her son who was suffering from serious ailments.
[TABLE] of Submissions
| Main Submission | Sub-Submission | Party |
|---|---|---|
| Marriage is dead | Parties have been living separately for more than 16 years. | Appellant |
| Marriage is dead | No meaningful effort for reconciliation. | Appellant |
| Irretrievable breakdown of marriage | Relied on Sukhendu Das v. Rita Mukherjee and Munish Kakkar v. Nidhi Kakkar. | Appellant |
| Marriage should continue | Intends to live with the appellant. | Respondent |
| Marriage should continue | Not convinced that an unworkable marriage should be put to an end. | Respondent |
Innovativeness of the argument: The appellant’s argument was innovative in the sense that it sought to apply the concept of irretrievable breakdown of marriage, which is not a statutory ground for divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, by relying on the Supreme Court’s power under Article 142 of the Constitution.
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame specific issues. However, the core issue before the court was:
- Whether the marriage should be dissolved on the ground of irretrievable breakdown, despite the respondent’s unwillingness to end the marriage.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues
| Issue | Court’s Decision | Brief Reasons |
|---|---|---|
| Whether the marriage should be dissolved on the ground of irretrievable breakdown, despite the respondent’s unwillingness to end the marriage. | Yes, the marriage was dissolved. | The Court held that the marriage was emotionally dead and there was no point in compelling the parties to live together. The Court exercised its power under Article 142 of the Constitution to do complete justice. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:
Cases:
- Sukhendu Das v. Rita Mukherjee [(2017) 9 SCC 632] – Supreme Court of India. The Court referred to this case where a marriage was dissolved due to irretrievable breakdown after the parties had been living separately for 17 years. The Court had exercised its power under Article 142 of the Constitution in this case.
- Munish Kakkar v. Nidhi Kakkar [(2020) 14 SCC 657] – Supreme Court of India. The Court cited this case to highlight its use of Article 142 to end a long-standing matrimonial dispute that had lasted for two decades.
Legal Provisions:
- Article 142 of the Constitution of India: This article empowers the Supreme Court to pass any decree or order necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter before it.
[TABLE] of Authorities
| Authority | Court | How it was used |
|---|---|---|
| Sukhendu Das v. Rita Mukherjee [(2017) 9 SCC 632] | Supreme Court of India | Followed – The court relied on this case where a marriage was dissolved due to irretrievable breakdown using Article 142. |
| Munish Kakkar v. Nidhi Kakkar [(2020) 14 SCC 657] | Supreme Court of India | Followed – The court cited this case to highlight its use of Article 142 to end a long-standing matrimonial dispute. |
| Article 142 of the Constitution of India | Supreme Court of India | Applied – The court used this to dissolve the marriage for doing complete justice. |
Judgment
How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?
| Submission | Party | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|---|
| The marriage had irretrievably broken down as the parties had been living separately for over 16 years. | Appellant | Accepted – The Court agreed that the marriage was emotionally dead and there was no point in compelling the parties to live together. |
| Relied on Sukhendu Das v. Rita Mukherjee and Munish Kakkar v. Nidhi Kakkar where the Supreme Court had dissolved marriages under Article 142 of the Constitution due to irretrievable breakdown. | Appellant | Accepted – The Court relied on these cases to justify the use of Article 142. |
| Insisted on continuing the marriage. | Respondent | Rejected – Despite the respondent’s insistence, the Court dissolved the marriage. |
| Not convinced that an unworkable marriage should be terminated. | Respondent | Rejected – The Court found that the marriage was emotionally dead and there was no point in compelling the parties to live together. |
How each authority was viewed by the Court?
- The Court followed Sukhendu Das v. Rita Mukherjee [(2017) 9 SCC 632], where the Supreme Court had dissolved a marriage due to irretrievable breakdown using Article 142.
- The Court also followed Munish Kakkar v. Nidhi Kakkar [(2020) 14 SCC 657], where the Supreme Court used Article 142 to end a long-standing matrimonial dispute.
- The Court applied Article 142 of the Constitution of India to dissolve the marriage for doing complete justice.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the fact that the marriage had irretrievably broken down. The Court emphasized that the parties had been living separately for over 16 years, and there was no possibility of reconciliation. The Court also considered the submissions of the Amicus Curiae that the respondent was not willing for dissolution of marriage, but the Court concluded that the marriage was “emotionally dead.” The Court, therefore, decided to exercise its power under Article 142 of the Constitution to dissolve the marriage to do complete justice.
Sentiment Analysis of Reasons Given by the Supreme Court
| Reason | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Parties living separately for over 16 years | 40% |
| No possibility of reconciliation | 30% |
| Marriage was emotionally dead | 20% |
| Need to do complete justice under Article 142 | 10% |
Fact:Law Ratio
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact (Consideration of factual aspects of the case) | 70% |
| Law (Consideration of legal provisions) | 30% |
Logical Reasoning
The Court’s reasoning was that despite the respondent’s desire to continue the marriage, the prolonged separation and lack of reconciliation made it clear that the marriage had irretrievably broken down. The Court also considered that the marriage was “emotionally dead” and that there was no point in compelling the parties to live together. The Court relied on its previous judgments, where it had exercised its power under Article 142 of the Constitution to dissolve marriages in similar situations. The Court also noted that the respondent had to take care of her son who was suffering from serious ailments.
The Court considered alternative interpretations, such as the possibility of reconciliation, but rejected them due to the long separation and the respondent’s lack of effort towards reconciliation. The Court also considered the respondent’s submission that she did not want the marriage to be dissolved, but ultimately concluded that the marriage was “emotionally dead” and that there was no point in compelling the parties to live together.
The final decision was reached by exercising the power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, which allows the Supreme Court to pass any decree or order necessary for doing complete justice. The Court held that in the interest of justice, the marriage should be dissolved.
The court reasoned that “the marriage between the parties is emotionally dead and there is no point in persuading them to live together any more.” It also observed that “this is a fit case for exercise of jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India.” The Court further noted, “Though the respondent has insisted that she intends to live with the Appellant, no meaningful effort has been made by her for reconciliation.”
Key Takeaways
- The Supreme Court can dissolve a marriage under Article 142 of the Constitution if it finds that the marriage has irretrievably broken down, even if one party does not consent.
- Prolonged separation and lack of reconciliation are key factors in determining irretrievable breakdown.
- The Court may consider the emotional state of the marriage and whether it is “emotionally dead” when deciding whether to dissolve it.
- The Court directed the appellant to pay Rs. 25 lakhs to the respondent as full and final settlement of all claims.
Potential Future Impact: This judgment reinforces the Supreme Court’s stance on irretrievable breakdown of marriage and its willingness to use Article 142 to provide relief in such cases. It may lead to more couples seeking dissolution of marriage on similar grounds, even when one party is not willing. It also highlights the importance of the emotional aspect of a marriage in legal proceedings.
Directions
The Supreme Court directed the appellant to pay an amount of Rs. 25 Lakhs (Rupees Twenty-Five Lakhs) to the respondent within a period of eight weeks from the date of the judgment. The Court also directed that the petition filed by the respondent under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr. PC) for maintenance shall be withdrawn by the respondent on receipt of the amount of Rs. 25 Lakhs. The payment of the aforesaid amount was made in full and final settlement of all claims of the respondent against the appellant.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that the Supreme Court can exercise its power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to dissolve a marriage on the ground of irretrievable breakdown, even if one party does not consent to the divorce. This decision reinforces the principle that when a marriage is “emotionally dead” and there is no possibility of reconciliation, the court can intervene to provide closure and do complete justice. This case further develops the law on irretrievable breakdown of marriage, which is not a statutory ground for divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
Conclusion
In the case of Subhransu Sarkar vs. Indrani Sarkar, the Supreme Court of India dissolved the marriage between the parties, citing the irretrievable breakdown of the marriage. The Court exercised its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, despite the respondent’s insistence on continuing the marriage. The Court held that the marriage was “emotionally dead” and that there was no point in compelling the parties to live together. The Court also directed the appellant to pay Rs. 25 lakhs to the respondent as a full and final settlement. This case highlights the Supreme Court’s willingness to dissolve marriages that have irretrievably broken down, even when one party is not willing, to do complete justice.