Supreme Court grants divorce based on irretrievable breakdown and cruelty: Sivasankaran vs. Santhimeenal (2021)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 13 September 2021

Citation: [Not Available in Source]

Judges: Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J. and Hrishikesh Roy, J.

Can a marriage be dissolved when it has irretrievably broken down and one spouse has exhibited cruelty, even if the other spouse does not consent? The Supreme Court of India addressed this critical question in the case of Sivasankaran vs. Santhimeenal. The court examined whether a marriage that had never truly begun could be legally terminated due to both irretrievable breakdown and the cruelty inflicted by one party on the other. The bench, consisting of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Hrishikesh Roy, delivered the judgment.

Case Background

The appellant-husband and the respondent-wife married on 7 February 2002, according to Hindu rites. However, the marriage faced immediate difficulties. The appellant claimed that the respondent stated she was coerced into the marriage, left the marriage hall that night, and went to Pudukkottai. An attempt by the appellant’s relatives to persuade her to return the next day was unsuccessful, and the marriage was never consummated. The appellant, on 25 February 2002, sought a divorce on the ground of cruelty under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The respondent then filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights, alleging dowry demands and that the appellant’s brothers took him away, preventing consummation. She claimed the appellant refused to live with her. The appellant then filed HMOP 24/2003 on 5 March 2003, which was re-numbered as HMOP 10/2005, also under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. After nearly 5 years, on 17 March 2008, the trial court granted a divorce based on irretrievable breakdown of marriage. The appellant remarried on 23 March 2008. The respondent appealed, and the appellate court set aside the divorce decree and allowed the petition for restitution of conjugal rights. The High Court, in a second appeal, restored the divorce decree on 14 September 2018. The respondent then filed a review petition, arguing the courts lacked jurisdiction to grant a divorce on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage. The High Court allowed the review petition on 25 February 2019, which led to the present appeal before the Supreme Court.

Timeline

Legal Framework

The primary legal provision at issue is Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, which deals with divorce on the grounds of cruelty. The Act does not explicitly recognize irretrievable breakdown of marriage as a ground for divorce. The Supreme Court has, however, exercised its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to grant divorce in cases of irretrievable breakdown of marriage to ensure complete justice. The Law Commission of India has repeatedly recommended the inclusion of irretrievable breakdown of marriage as a ground for divorce in its 59th report (1974), 71st report (1978) and 217th Report in 2010. However, these recommendations have not been implemented by the legislature. The Marriage Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2010, and the Marriage Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2013, which proposed to add irretrievable breakdown of marriage as a ground for divorce, were never passed.

Arguments

Appellant’s Submissions:

• The marriage never took off as the respondent left the marriage hall immediately after the ceremony.
• The marriage was never consummated, and the parties have been living separately since the wedding.
• The respondent has filed multiple cases against the appellant, causing mental cruelty.
• The respondent’s actions, such as filing complaints against the appellant with his employer, amount to harassment.
• The appellant relied on the fact that the marriage had irretrievably broken down and that the respondent’s conduct constituted cruelty.

Respondent’s Submissions:

• The respondent was always willing to live with the appellant.
• The respondent opposed the divorce, even though she was not seeking maintenance and was not affected by the appellant’s second marriage.
• The respondent argued that the court cannot grant a divorce on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage in the absence of consent from both parties.
• The respondent contended that the institution of marriage under Hindu law is sacramental and that divorce is not easily accepted in society.
• The respondent relied on the fact that irretrievable breakdown of marriage is not a ground for divorce under 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 key issues addressed by the court were:

1. Whether the marriage could be dissolved on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage, despite the absence of such a ground under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
2. Whether the conduct of the respondent after the initial trigger for divorce amounted to mental cruelty.
3. Whether the Supreme Court could exercise its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to grant a decree of divorce in the absence of mutual consent.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

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

Authorities

The following authorities were relied upon by the court in its decision:

Judgment

The Supreme Court granted a decree of divorce in favor of the appellant, dissolving the marriage. The court based its decision on both the grounds of irretrievable breakdown of marriage and cruelty. The court exercised its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to grant the divorce, noting that the marriage had not worked, and the parties were unwilling to live together. The court also found that the respondent’s conduct, including filing multiple cases and harassing the appellant at his workplace, amounted to mental cruelty. The court held that the marriage had never taken off from the first day, and the parties had been living separately for almost 20 years. The court also noted that the appellant had remarried after 6 years of the marriage, 5 years of which were spent in Trial Court proceedings. The court opined that the marriage took place soon after the decree of divorce was granted.

How each authority was viewed by the Court:

• The Law Commission reports were cited to show the repeated recommendations for including irretrievable breakdown of marriage as a ground for divorce.
• R. Srinivas Kumar v. R. Shametha [(2019) 9 SCC 409]* and Munish Kakkar v. Nidhi Kakkar [(2020) 14 SCC 657]* were followed to emphasize that consent of both parties is not required for divorce under Article 142.
• Hitesh Bhatnagar v. Deepa Bhatnagar [(2011) 5 SCC 234]* was used to highlight that a marriage should be dissolved only when it is impossible to save.
• Naveen Kohli v. Neelu Kohli [(2006) 4 SCC 558]* and Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh [(2007) 4 SCC 511]* were cited to support the view that the law should recognize when a marriage has broken down beyond repair.
• Sukhendu Das v. Rita Mukherjee [(2017) 9 SCC 632]* was cited as a similar case where divorce was granted under Article 142.
• K. Srinivas Rao v. DA Deepa [(2013) 5 SCC 226]*, Vishwanath Agrawal v. Sarla Vishwanath Agrawal [(2012) SCCOnline SC 489]*, A. Jayachandra v. Aneel Kaur [(2005) 2 SCC 22]* and Malathi Ravi v. B.V. Ravi [(2014) 7 SCC 640]* were cited to support the finding of cruelty based on the respondent’s conduct.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court was primarily influenced by the fact that the marriage had completely broken down and there was no possibility of reconciliation. The court also took into account the respondent’s conduct, which was deemed to be cruel and harassing. The court emphasized that the marriage had never taken off from the first day and that the parties had been living separately for almost 20 years. The court also considered the fact that the appellant had remarried after a long period of separation and after obtaining a decree of divorce from the trial court. The court was of the view that the respondent’s conduct was not only causing emotional trauma to the appellant, but was also an abuse of process of law. The Court also took note of the fact that the respondent was not even willing to concede the decree of divorce on any terms, despite the fact that both the parties were living separately for almost two decades and the respondent was not even claiming maintenance.

Logical Reasoning:

The court considered alternative interpretations, such as the argument that divorce cannot be granted without mutual consent and that irretrievable breakdown of marriage is not a ground for divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. However, the court rejected these interpretations, holding that it could exercise its powers under Article 142 to do complete justice between the parties. The court also held that the respondent’s actions amounted to cruelty, which was a valid ground for divorce under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The final decision was reached by considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, including the long separation, the respondent’s conduct, and the lack of any possibility of reconciliation.

The court’s decision was based on the following reasons:

• The marriage had irretrievably broken down.
• The respondent’s conduct amounted to cruelty.
• The parties had been living separately for almost 20 years.
• There was no possibility of reconciliation.
• The court had the power under Article 142 to grant divorce in the interest of justice.

“This is not only on account of the fact that the appellant has married a second time but also because the parties are so troubled by each other that they are not willing to even think of living together.”

“The marriage was never consummated and the parties have been living separately from the date of marriage for almost 20 years.”

“In the conspectus of all the aforesaid facts, this is one case where both the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage and the ground of cruelty on account of subsequent facts would favour the grant of decree of divorce in favour of the appellant.”

There were no dissenting opinions in this judgment. The bench consisted of two judges, Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Hrishikesh Roy, and both concurred with the decision. The court’s reasoning was based on a combination of legal principles and the specific facts of the case, and the application of Article 142 of the Constitution of India to ensure complete justice.

Key Takeaways

• The Supreme Court can grant divorce based on irretrievable breakdown of marriage under Article 142, even if it is not a ground for divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
• Cruel conduct by one spouse, such as filing multiple cases and harassment at the workplace, can be a ground for divorce.
• Consent of both parties is not always necessary for divorce, especially when the marriage has irretrievably broken down.
• The court can consider subsequent events and conduct of the parties during the pendency of judicial proceedings to determine whether cruelty has been committed.
• This judgment reinforces the court’s power to do complete justice and put an end to dead marriages.

This judgment may have a significant impact on future cases involving irretrievable breakdown of marriage and cruelty. It reinforces the Supreme Court’s power to exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution to grant divorce in cases where the marriage has completely broken down and there is no possibility of reconciliation. It also makes it clear that the court can consider the conduct of the parties during the pendency of legal proceedings to determine whether cruelty has been committed and that mutual consent is not always necessary for divorce. This is likely to lead to more cases where the court exercises its power to grant divorce to put an end to dead marriages.

Directions

No specific directions were issued by the Supreme Court in this judgment.

Specific Amendments Analysis

The judgment does not discuss any specific amendments.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the Supreme Court can exercise its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to grant divorce in cases of irretrievable breakdown of marriage and cruelty, even if one party does not consent. This judgment reiterates the court’s position on the use of Article 142 to do complete justice, especially in cases where the marriage has irretrievably broken down. It also clarifies that the court can consider the conduct of the parties during the pendency of legal proceedings to determine whether cruelty has been committed. This case reinforces the court’s power to put an end to dead marriages and provide relief to the parties.

Conclusion

In the case of Sivasankaran vs. Santhimeenal, the Supreme Court granted a decree of divorce to the appellant, dissolving the marriage. The court based its decision on both the grounds of irretrievable breakdown of marriage and cruelty. The court exercised its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to grant the divorce, noting that the marriage had not worked, and the parties were unwilling to live together. The court also found that the respondent’s conduct, including filing multiple cases and harassing the appellant at his workplace, amounted to mental cruelty. This judgment reinforces the court’s power to do complete justice and put an end to dead marriages, and provides clarity on the circumstances under which the court can grant a divorce even when one party does not consent.