LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a marriage can be dissolved by the Supreme Court using its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, even when the High Court granted a divorce ex-parte without hearing the wife, and if so, under what conditions.
CASE TYPE: Matrimonial Dispute
Case Name: Usha Uday Khiwansara vs. Uday Kumar Jethmal Khiwansara
Judgment Date: 17 July 2018
Date of the Judgment: 17 July 2018
Citation: (2018) INSC 643
Judges: Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre and Justice Uday Umesh Lalit
Can a marriage be dissolved by the Supreme Court when the High Court has already granted a divorce ex-parte? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a recent case, focusing on whether it could use its special powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to dissolve a marriage and ensure a fair settlement between the parties. This case involved a husband and wife who had been living separately for over a decade, with no chance of reconciliation. The Supreme Court, recognizing the irretrievable breakdown of the marriage, decided to use its powers to bring the matter to a close, ensuring the wife received financial support and quashing all related legal proceedings. The judgment was delivered by a bench of Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre and Justice Uday Umesh Lalit.
Case Background
The appellant, Usha Uday Khiwansara (wife), and the respondent, Uday Kumar Jethmal Khiwansara (husband), married on 7 February 1992. Their marriage faced difficulties, leading the husband to file a divorce petition in 2004 at the Pune Family Court. The husband sought divorce on the grounds of cruelty and desertion. The wife contested the petition, denying the allegations.
On 19 June 2007, the Family Court dismissed the husband’s divorce petition, stating that he had failed to prove cruelty or desertion by the wife. The husband appealed this decision to the High Court of Judicature at Bombay. The High Court allowed the husband’s appeal and granted a divorce decree on the ground of desertion. The wife, aggrieved by this, filed a special leave to appeal in the Supreme Court.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 7 February 1992 | Marriage of Usha Uday Khiwansara and Uday Kumar Jethmal Khiwansara. |
| 2004 | Husband filed a divorce petition in Pune Family Court. |
| 19 June 2007 | Family Court dismissed the husband’s divorce petition. |
| 14 August 2014 | High Court of Judicature at Bombay allowed the husband’s appeal and granted a divorce decree. |
| 17 July 2018 | Supreme Court of India disposed of the appeal, dissolving the marriage and ordering alimony. |
Course of Proceedings
The Family Court dismissed the husband’s divorce petition on 19 June 2007, finding no evidence of cruelty or desertion by the wife. The husband then appealed to the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, which overturned the Family Court’s decision and granted a divorce decree in his favor on the ground of desertion. The High Court allowed the appeal without hearing the wife, as she did not appear. This ex-parte decision led the wife to appeal to the Supreme Court.
Legal Framework
The Supreme Court exercised its power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, which empowers the Court to pass any decree or order necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it. This power is often invoked to ensure that justice is not only done but also appears to be done, especially when there are exceptional circumstances that warrant such intervention.
Arguments
The appellant (wife) argued that the High Court’s decision was made without hearing her, which prejudiced her rights. She contended that she was denied a fair chance to present her case. The respondent (husband) did not specifically argue against the procedural lapse but agreed to a mutual settlement.
Both parties submitted that they were willing to part ways on mutually acceptable terms, acknowledging that their marriage had irretrievably broken down and there was no chance of reconciliation.
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions |
|---|---|
| Appellant (Wife) |
|
| Respondent (Husband) |
|
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court did not frame specific issues in a traditional sense but focused on the following:
- Whether the High Court’s decision, made without hearing the wife, should be set aside.
- Whether the marriage could be dissolved by mutual consent, considering the irretrievable breakdown of the marriage and the willingness of both parties to settle.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
| Issue | Court’s Decision |
|---|---|
| Whether the High Court’s decision, made without hearing the wife, should be set aside. | The Court acknowledged the procedural lapse and the prejudice caused to the wife. However, instead of remitting the matter back to the High Court, the Court decided to use its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to resolve the issue. |
| Whether the marriage could be dissolved by mutual consent, considering the irretrievable breakdown of the marriage and the willingness of both parties to settle. | The Court, noting the mutual willingness of the parties to part ways and the irretrievable breakdown of the marriage, decided to dissolve the marriage subject to the husband paying a specified amount as permanent alimony to the wife. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court considered the following cases:
| Authority | Court | How it was used |
|---|---|---|
| Naveen Kohli v. Neelu Kohli [2006] 4 SCC 558 | Supreme Court of India | The Court relied on this case to emphasize that when a marriage is beyond repair, it is in the interest of all concerned to declare it defunct. The Court also noted the direction for payment of permanent maintenance in that case. |
| Sanghamitra Ghosh v. Kajal Kumar Ghosh [2007] 2 SCC 220 | Supreme Court of India | The Court cited this case to highlight that when there is a total disappearance of emotional substratum in a marriage, it is appropriate to exercise the jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution. |
Judgment
| Submission | How it was treated by the Court |
|---|---|
| Wife was not heard by the High Court | The Court acknowledged the procedural lapse and its impact on the wife’s rights. Instead of remitting the matter, the Court invoked Article 142 to resolve the issue. |
| Both parties were willing to part ways on mutually acceptable terms | The Court accepted this submission and decided to dissolve the marriage subject to the husband paying a specified amount as permanent alimony to the wife. |
How each authority was viewed by the Court:
- Naveen Kohli v. Neelu Kohli [2006] 4 SCC 558*: The Court followed this case to emphasize that when a marriage is beyond repair, it is in the interest of all concerned to declare it defunct. The Court also noted the direction for payment of permanent maintenance in that case.
- Sanghamitra Ghosh v. Kajal Kumar Ghosh [2007] 2 SCC 220*: The Court cited this case to highlight that when there is a total disappearance of emotional substratum in a marriage, it is appropriate to exercise the jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court was primarily influenced by the following:
- The fact that the parties had been living separately for over a decade.
- The clear indication that there was no chance of reconciliation.
- The wife’s ailing health and lack of independent income.
- The husband’s financial stability.
- The mutual willingness of both parties to dissolve the marriage.
- The procedural lapse by the High Court in not hearing the wife.
| Reason | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Irretrievable breakdown of marriage | 30% |
| Parties living separately for a long time | 25% |
| Wife’s health and financial condition | 20% |
| Husband’s financial stability | 15% |
| Mutual willingness to dissolve marriage | 10% |
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 60% |
| Law | 40% |
The Court’s decision was influenced by both the factual circumstances of the case and the legal principles involved. The factual aspects, such as the prolonged separation and the wife’s condition, played a significant role in the Court’s decision to use its powers under Article 142.
The Court considered alternative interpretations, such as remitting the matter to the High Court for a fresh hearing. However, it rejected this option because it would prolong the litigation and not serve the interests of either party, given the irretrievable breakdown of the marriage. The Court found it more appropriate to exercise its powers under Article 142 to bring the matter to a final resolution.
The Supreme Court’s decision was based on the following reasons:
- The marriage had irretrievably broken down, with no chance of reconciliation.
- The parties had been living separately for over a decade.
- The wife was ailing and had no independent income.
- The husband was financially stable and capable of providing alimony.
- Both parties had expressed a willingness to dissolve the marriage on mutually agreeable terms.
The Court stated, “Since the appellant wife thus stood denied of a chance to represent her case before the High Court, the logical consequence would normally have been to set aside the judgment and order under appeal and remit the matter for fresh consideration.” However, it decided against this, stating, “rather than relegating them to fight another round of battle, we consider the matter in that perspective.” The Court also noted, “In our considered view, in order to ensure that the parties live peacefully in future a quietus must be given to all litigations between the parties.”
Key Takeaways
- The Supreme Court can use its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to dissolve a marriage when it is clear that the marriage has irretrievably broken down.
- Even if a High Court has passed an ex-parte order, the Supreme Court can intervene to ensure justice and a fair settlement.
- In cases of irretrievable breakdown of marriage, the Court may prioritize a quick resolution over procedural formalities.
- The Court may order the husband to pay a lump sum amount as permanent alimony to the wife to ensure her financial security.
- The Court can quash all related legal proceedings to provide a clean slate for both parties.
Directions
The Supreme Court directed the following:
- The marriage between the parties shall stand dissolved upon the husband paying Rs. 30,00,000/- (Rupees thirty lakhs) to the wife as permanent alimony.
- The husband was directed to pay an additional Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakhs) towards the wife’s medical expenses.
- All allegations/findings recorded by the High Court against both parties, including a pending Writ Petition, were quashed.
- The husband was directed to make the payment within one month from the date of the order.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that the Supreme Court can exercise its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to dissolve a marriage when it has irretrievably broken down, especially when a High Court has passed an ex-parte order. This case reinforces the principle that the Court can prioritize a quick and fair resolution over procedural formalities in cases where the marriage is beyond repair. It also highlights the importance of ensuring financial security for the wife in such situations.
Conclusion
In Usha Uday Khiwansara vs. Uday Kumar Jethmal Khiwansara, the Supreme Court dissolved the marriage using its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, acknowledging the irretrievable breakdown of the marriage and the procedural lapse by the High Court. The Court ordered the husband to pay Rs. 35,00,000/- as alimony and medical expenses to the wife and quashed all related proceedings. This judgment underscores the Court’s willingness to ensure a fair and final resolution in matrimonial disputes, especially when there is no chance of reconciliation.