LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a marriage can be dissolved due to irretrievable breakdown when the parties have been living separately for a long time and there is no possibility of reconciliation.
CASE TYPE: Matrimonial Law
Case Name: Manju Kumari Singh @ Smt. Manju Singh vs. Avinash Kumar Singh
Judgment Date: 25 July 2018
Introduction
Date of the Judgment: 25 July 2018
Citation: (2018) INSC 663
Judges: Abhay Manohar Sapre, J. and Uday Umesh Lalit, J.
Can a marriage be dissolved if it has irretrievably broken down, even if specific grounds for divorce aren’t fully proven? The Supreme Court of India addressed this critical question in the case of Manju Kumari Singh vs. Avinash Kumar Singh. This case explores the circumstances under which a marriage can be dissolved when there is no chance of reconciliation. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre and Justice Uday Umesh Lalit.
Case Background
Manju Kumari Singh (the appellant) and Avinash Kumar Singh (the respondent) were married on 16 February 1997. The appellant was a teacher, while the respondent was a practicing advocate. They had a daughter in 1998, who has been living with the appellant since birth. Unfortunately, their marital life became strained soon after the marriage.
In 2001, the respondent filed a divorce petition in the Family Court, Singhbhum East, Jamshedpur, citing cruelty and desertion by the appellant. The appellant contested these allegations. The Family Court granted the divorce decree on 23 December 2002, based on the grounds of cruelty and desertion.
The appellant then appealed to the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi, which affirmed the Family Court’s decision on 24 September 2008. The appellant then approached the Supreme Court, which remanded the matter back to the High Court for a fresh hearing on 9 January 2015. The High Court again dismissed the appellant’s appeal, affirming the divorce decree on the ground of desertion. This led the appellant to file a special leave petition in the Supreme Court.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 16 February 1997 | Marriage of Manju Kumari Singh and Avinash Kumar Singh. |
| 1998 | Birth of their daughter. |
| 2001 | Husband filed for divorce in Family Court, Singhbhum East, Jamshedpur. |
| 23 December 2002 | Family Court granted divorce decree on grounds of cruelty and desertion. |
| 24 September 2008 | High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi affirmed the Family Court’s decision. |
| 9 January 2015 | Supreme Court remanded the matter to the High Court for fresh hearing. |
| 14 July 2015 | Supreme Court dismissed the review petition filed by the husband. |
| 28 February 2017 | High Court dismissed the wife’s appeal and affirmed the divorce decree on the ground of desertion. |
| 25 July 2018 | Supreme Court delivered the final judgment. |
Course of Proceedings
The Family Court initially dissolved the marriage on the grounds of cruelty and desertion. The High Court of Jharkhand upheld this decision. However, the Supreme Court remanded the case for a fresh hearing. After the remand, the High Court again dismissed the wife’s appeal, affirming the divorce decree, this time solely on the ground of desertion. The wife then appealed to the Supreme Court.
Legal Framework
The judgment primarily revolves around the concept of irretrievable breakdown of marriage, although not explicitly defined in the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The Court also considered the powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, which allows the Supreme Court to pass orders necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it.
Arguments
The respondent (husband) argued that the marriage had irretrievably broken down due to the appellant’s (wife’s) cruelty and desertion. He contended that the couple had been living separately for over a decade, with no chance of reconciliation.
The appellant (wife) denied the allegations of cruelty and desertion. However, the specific arguments made by the appellant are not detailed in the provided document.
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions |
|---|---|
| Husband’s Submission: Marriage has irretrievably broken down. |
✓ The parties have been living separately for over a decade. ✓ All attempts at reconciliation have failed. ✓ There is no chance of the couple living together again. |
| Wife’s Submission: Denied allegations of cruelty and desertion. |
✓ Contested the grounds for divorce. ✓ Specific sub-submissions are not detailed in the document. |
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame specific issues in the provided document. However, the core issue before the court was whether the marriage should be dissolved given the irretrievable breakdown, even if the grounds of cruelty and desertion were not conclusively proven.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
| Issue | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|
| Whether the marriage should be dissolved due to irretrievable breakdown. | The Court, noting the prolonged separation and failed reconciliation attempts, decided to dissolve the marriage using its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court relied on the following cases:
- Naveen Kohli v. Neelu Kohli, (2006) 4 SCC 558 – Supreme Court of India. The Court observed that when a marriage is wrecked beyond repair, it is in the public interest to declare it defunct.
- Sanghamitra Ghosh v. Kajal Kumar Ghosh, (2007) 2 SCC 220 – Supreme Court of India. The Court reiterated the principle of irretrievable breakdown and used Article 142 to dissolve the marriage.
| Authority | How it was used by the Court |
|---|---|
| Naveen Kohli v. Neelu Kohli, (2006) 4 SCC 558 – Supreme Court of India | The Court followed the principle that a marriage broken beyond repair should be declared defunct. |
| Sanghamitra Ghosh v. Kajal Kumar Ghosh, (2007) 2 SCC 220 – Supreme Court of India | The Court followed the precedent of using Article 142 to dissolve a marriage that has irretrievably broken down. |
Judgment
| Submission by Parties | How the Court Treated the Submission |
|---|---|
| Husband’s submission that the marriage has irretrievably broken down. | The Court accepted this submission, noting the prolonged separation and failed reconciliation attempts. |
| Wife’s denial of cruelty and desertion. | The Court did not directly address the merits of these allegations but focused on the irretrievable breakdown of the marriage. |
| Authority | Court’s View |
|---|---|
| Naveen Kohli v. Neelu Kohli, (2006) 4 SCC 558 | The Court followed this case to emphasize that when a marriage is beyond repair, it should be dissolved to avoid further harm. |
| Sanghamitra Ghosh v. Kajal Kumar Ghosh, (2007) 2 SCC 220 | The Court followed this precedent to exercise its powers under Article 142 to dissolve the marriage due to irretrievable breakdown. |
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court was primarily influenced by the fact that the parties had been living separately for more than a decade, and all attempts at reconciliation had failed. The Court emphasized that the marriage was beyond repair and that continuing it would be detrimental to both parties. The Court also considered the welfare of the daughter and the need to bring an end to the prolonged litigation.
| Sentiment | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Irretrievable Breakdown | 40% |
| Prolonged Separation | 30% |
| Failed Reconciliation | 20% |
| Welfare of the Daughter | 10% |
| Ratio | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 70% |
| Law | 30% |
The Court’s decision was heavily influenced by the factual circumstances of the case, particularly the prolonged separation and the lack of any possibility of reconciliation. While legal principles were considered, the primary driver was the practical reality that the marriage had irretrievably broken down.
Logical Reasoning
Parties have been living separately for over a decade
All reconciliation attempts have failed
Marriage has irretrievably broken down
Continuation of marriage is futile and detrimental
Supreme Court exercises power under Article 142
Marriage is dissolved
The Court’s reasoning was based on the factual circumstances of the case, and the legal precedents set by cases like Naveen Kohli v. Neelu Kohli, (2006) 4 SCC 558 and Sanghamitra Ghosh v. Kajal Kumar Ghosh, (2007) 2 SCC 220. The Court used its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to dissolve the marriage.
The Court quoted from Naveen Kohli v. Neelu Kohli, (2006) 4 SCC 558:
“…the matrimonial bond between the parties is beyond repair. A marriage between the parties is only in name. The marriage has been wrecked beyond the hope of salvage, public interest and interest of all concerned lies in the recognition of the fact and to declare defunct de jure what is already defunct de facto.”
The Court also quoted from Sanghamitra Ghosh v. Kajal Kumar Ghosh, (2007) 2 SCC 220:
“In fact there has been total disappearance of emotional substratum in the marriage. The matrimonial bond between the parties is beyond repair. A marriage between the parties is only in name.”
The Court did not explore any alternative interpretations, as it was convinced that the marriage had irretrievably broken down.
Key Takeaways
- ✓ The Supreme Court can dissolve a marriage based on the ground of irretrievable breakdown, even if specific grounds for divorce are not fully established.
- ✓ Prolonged separation and failed reconciliation attempts are key factors in determining irretrievable breakdown.
- ✓ The Court can exercise its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to do complete justice in such cases.
- ✓ The welfare of the parties and their children is a significant consideration in these cases.
Directions
The Supreme Court directed the respondent (husband) to pay a total sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- (ten lakhs) in two installments towards permanent alimony and maintenance to the appellant and daughter.
The first installment of Rs. 5,00,000/- was to be paid to the daughter within three months from the date of the order.
The second installment of Rs. 5,00,000/- was to be paid to the daughter within four months from the payment of the first installment.
All allegations made in the pending cases arising out of the matrimonial proceedings were expunged, and all pending proceedings were disposed of.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that the Supreme Court can dissolve a marriage on the ground of irretrievable breakdown by exercising its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, even if the specific grounds for divorce are not fully proven. This judgment reinforces the principle that when a marriage is beyond repair, it is in the interest of all parties to declare it defunct. This case does not introduce a new law but reinforces the existing position of law.
Conclusion
In Manju Kumari Singh vs. Avinash Kumar Singh, the Supreme Court dissolved the marriage based on the irretrievable breakdown, acknowledging the prolonged separation and failed attempts at reconciliation. The Court used its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to ensure complete justice, directing the husband to provide financial support to the wife and daughter. This judgment underscores the Court’s willingness to dissolve marriages when they are beyond repair, prioritizing the welfare of all parties involved.