Supreme Court Grants Divorce Citing Cruelty from Irretrievable Breakdown: Rakesh Raman vs. Kavita (26 April 2023)

Date of the Judgment: 26 April 2023
Citation: Civil Appeal No. 2012 of 2013
Judges: Sudhanshu Dhulia, J., J. B. Pardiwala, J. (authored by Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.)
Can a marriage be dissolved if it has irretrievably broken down, even if it doesn’t fit the traditional definition of cruelty? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case where a couple had been living separately for 25 years. The court ultimately granted a divorce, recognizing that the prolonged separation and bitter relationship itself constituted cruelty. This judgment highlights how the court is adapting to the realities of modern relationships while interpreting the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The bench comprised Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and J.B. Pardiwala, with Justice Dhulia authoring the judgment.

Case Background

The appellant, Shri Rakesh Raman, and the respondent, Smt. Kavita, were married on 16 April 1994, in Delhi, following Hindu rituals. The marriage, unfortunately, was not a happy one. The husband alleged that his wife was unhappy with their living situation and used abusive language towards him. He also claimed that she terminated a pregnancy in September 1994 without informing him, though this was denied by the wife. The wife left her matrimonial home in September 1994, but returned in March 1995 after family intervention. She left again on 16 February 1998, lodging a police complaint. She returned in March 1998, on the condition that they would move to a new house, which they did in April 1998. However, the husband claimed that on 24 August 1998, he was beaten by his wife and her brother. On 29 November 1998, he was locked out of his house for an entire night. On 17 December 1998, the wife filed a First Information Report (FIR) against the husband and his brother under Section 498A and 406 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), leading to their arrest. The husband and brother were later released on bail. The wife also filed complaints under Sections 323 and 324 read with Section 34 of the IPC, but the husband and his family members were discharged from the case. Additionally, the wife initiated proceedings against the husband under Section 107 read with Section 150 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and filed a petition for maintenance under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The husband filed a petition for divorce in the Additional District Judge’s court, which was granted on 02 May 2009. The wife appealed to the Delhi High Court, which set aside the trial court’s order on 08 April 2011, dismissing the husband’s divorce petition. The husband then filed a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court, which granted leave on 26 February 2013. The Supreme Court attempted mediation and settlement multiple times, including referrals to Lok Adalat, but all efforts failed. The husband stated unequivocally that there was no room for compromise, while the wife expressed a desire to save the marriage and requested further mediation.

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, which allows for divorce on the ground that the other party “has, after the solemnization of the marriage, treated the petitioner with cruelty.” The court also considered the concept of irretrievable breakdown of marriage, although it is not a ground for divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The court also considered Section 498A and 406 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) which deals with cruelty and criminal breach of trust by husband and his relatives. The court also considered Section 18 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 which deals with the maintenance of wife.

Arguments

Appellant (Husband)’s Submissions:

• The appellant argued that the respondent’s actions, including filing multiple criminal cases against him and his family, constituted cruelty.
• He contended that the marriage had irretrievably broken down due to prolonged separation and lack of cohabitation for 25 years.
• He submitted that all efforts at reconciliation had failed and there was no possibility of the couple living together again.
• He relied on the judgments of the Supreme Court in Naveen Kohli v. Neelu Kohli [2006] 4 SCC 558 and K. Srinivas Rao v. D.A. Deepa [2013] 5 SCC 226 to argue that repeated filing of criminal cases amounts to cruelty.

Respondent (Wife)’s Submissions:

• The respondent denied that she had deserted her husband or inflicted any cruelty on him.
• She argued that she had only taken recourse to legal remedies available to her under the law.
• She submitted that her ornaments, which were her ‘stridhan,’ were taken away and never returned, forcing her to file cases under Sections 498A and 406 of the IPC.
• She claimed that she had made every effort for reconciliation but was unsuccessful due to the appellant’s non-cooperation.
• She prayed for mediation and submitted that no ground for divorce had been made out.

Innovativeness of the argument: The husband’s argument that the irretrievable breakdown of marriage itself constitutes cruelty is an innovative interpretation of Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, which was accepted by the Supreme Court.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not frame specific issues but considered the following:

1. Whether the facts of the case constitute cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
2. Whether the prolonged separation and irretrievable breakdown of marriage can be considered as cruelty.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

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

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Supreme Court followed Naveen Kohli v. Neelu Kohli [2006] 4 SCC 558 and K. Srinivas Rao v. D.A. Deepa [2013] 5 SCC 226, which held that repeated filing of criminal cases amounts to cruelty.
• The Supreme Court followed R. Srinivas Kumar v. R. Shametha [2019] 9 SCC 409, Munish Kakkar v. Nidhi Kakkar [2020] 14 SCC 657 and Neha Tyagi v. Lieutenant Colonel Deepak Tyagi [2022] 3 SCC 86, which stated that an irretrievable marriage is where husband and wife have been living separately for a considerable period and there is no chance of living together again.
• The Supreme Court relied upon Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh [2007] 4 SCC 511, which discussed what constitutes cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and that cruelty can be both physical and mental.
• The Court also relied on the definition of cruelty in matrimonial relationships as provided in Halsbury’s Laws of England (Vol 13, 4th Edn, Para 1269, Pg 602).

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court was primarily influenced by the prolonged separation of 25 years, the complete breakdown of the marital relationship, and the multiple litigations between the parties. The court recognized that the continuation of such a marriage would only lead to further cruelty for both parties. The Court also took into account the fact that there were no children from the marriage, which meant the dissolution would affect only the two parties involved. The court also considered the fact that all efforts at reconciliation had failed.

Fact:Law Ratio

The court’s reasoning was based on a combination of factual circumstances, such as the long separation and failed reconciliation attempts, and legal considerations, including the interpretation of cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The factual aspects significantly influenced the court’s decision, indicating that the practical realities of the broken marriage played a crucial role in the final judgment.

The Court considered the interpretation of cruelty as provided in Halsbury’s Laws of England, which states that the entire matrimonial relationship must be considered and that cruelty may not always be in violent acts but can be gathered from injurious reproaches, complaints, accusations, or taunts. The Court also considered the fact that the intention to cause cruelty is not a necessary element.

The Court considered the High Court’s view that mere filing of criminal cases does not constitute cruelty but ultimately disagreed with it when considering the entire facts of the case. The Court stated that the continuation of the marriage would mean the continuation of cruelty.

The Court also stated that while irretrievable breakdown of marriage is not a ground for divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, a marriage that has broken down irretrievably spells cruelty to both the parties and is therefore a ground for dissolution of marriage under Section 13 (1) (ia) of the Act.

The court quoted Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh [2007] 4 SCC 511 to explain what constitutes cruelty, including mental cruelty. The court stated that cruelty can be both physical and mental, and even unintentional cruelty can be a ground for divorce.

The court observed that the matrimonial bond was completely broken and beyond repair and that the continuation of the relationship was causing cruelty to both sides. The court stated that the long separation, absence of cohabitation, and the existing bitterness had to be read as cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

The Court also considered the fact that a dissolution of marriage would affect only the two parties as there was no child out of the wedlock.

The court quoted from the judgment:

“A marriage which has broken down irretrievably, in our opinion spells cruelty to both the parties, as in such a relationship each party is treating the other with cruelty.”

“The long separation and absence of cohabitation and the complete breakdown of all meaningful bonds and the existing bitterness between the two, has to be read as cruelty under Section 13(1) (ia) of the 1955 Act.”

“…continuation of such a ‘marriage’ would only mean giving sanction to cruelty which each is inflicting on the other.”

The Supreme Court, therefore, upheld the order of the Trial Court, although on different grounds. The Court set aside the order of the High Court and granted a decree of divorce to the husband.

The Court also directed the husband to pay Rs. 30,00,000 as permanent alimony to the wife, to be deposited within four weeks, and stated that the decree of divorce would be effective from the date of the deposit.

Key Takeaways

• ✓ Irretrievable breakdown of marriage can be considered as a form of cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, particularly when coupled with long separation and multiple litigations.
• ✓ Repeated filing of criminal cases by one spouse against the other can constitute cruelty.
• ✓ Courts must consider the entire matrimonial relationship, including the conduct of the parties, when determining cruelty.
• ✓ The absence of intention to cause cruelty does not negate the fact that the conduct may amount to cruelty.
• ✓ The Supreme Court has recognized that a marriage that has broken down irretrievably is detrimental to both parties.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the appellant/husband to deposit Rs. 30,00,000 (Thirty Lakh Rupees) as permanent alimony to the respondent/wife within four weeks from the date of the judgment with the Registry of the Supreme Court. The decree of divorce was made effective only from the date of such deposit.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a marriage that has broken down irretrievably, characterized by long separation, absence of cohabitation, and multiple court cases, can be considered as cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. This judgment expands the interpretation of cruelty to include situations where the marital relationship has become so bitter and acrimonious that its continuation amounts to cruelty. This is a change in the previous position of law where the courts would not grant divorce on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in this case underscores that prolonged separation, coupled with a complete breakdown of the marital relationship and multiple litigations, can constitute cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The court granted a divorce, recognizing that the continuation of such a marriage would be detrimental to both parties. This ruling reflects a pragmatic approach to marital disputes, acknowledging the realities of modern relationships and the need for a more nuanced understanding of cruelty.

Category

• Parent Category: Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
  • Child Category: Section 13(1)(ia), Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
  • Child Category: Cruelty
  • Child Category: Divorce
  • Child Category: Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage
• Parent Category: Indian Penal Code, 1860
  • Child Category: Section 498A, Indian Penal Code, 1860
  • Child Category: Section 406, Indian Penal Code, 1860
• Parent Category: Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956
  • Child Category: Section 18, Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956
  • Child Category: Maintenance
• Parent Category: Code of Criminal Procedure
  • Child Category: Section 107, Code of Criminal Procedure
  • Child Category: Section 150, Code of Criminal Procedure

FAQ

Q: What is the main issue in the Rakesh Raman vs. Kavita case?

A: The main issue was whether the prolonged separation and bitter relationship between the couple, along with multiple litigations, constituted cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and whether the marriage could be dissolved on this ground.

Q: What did the Supreme Court decide about cruelty in this case?

A: The Supreme Court decided that a marriage that has broken down irretrievably, characterized by long separation, absence of cohabitation, and multiple court cases, can be considered as cruelty. The court stated that the continuation of such a marriage would amount to cruelty for both parties.

Q: What is irretrievable breakdown of marriage?

A: Irretrievable breakdown of marriage refers to a situation where the marital relationship has deteriorated to such an extent that there is no reasonable prospect of reconciliation. The couple lives separately and there is no chance of them living together again.

Q: Can a divorce be granted if a marriage has irretrievably broken down?

A: While irretrievable breakdown of marriage is not a ground for divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the Supreme Court has interpreted that such a situation, when coupled with long separation and multiple litigations, can be considered as cruelty, which is a valid ground for divorce.

Q: What does Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 say?

A: Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, states that a divorce can be granted if the other party “has, after the solemnization of the marriage, treated the petitioner with cruelty.”

Q: What is the significance of this judgment?

A: This judgment is significant because it expands the interpretation of cruelty under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, to include situations where the marital relationship has become so bitter and acrimonious that its continuation amounts to cruelty. It also highlights the court’s pragmatic approach to marital disputes, acknowledging the realities of modern relationships.

Q: What is the permanent alimony awarded in this case?

A: The Supreme Court directed the husband to pay Rs. 30,00,000 (Thirty Lakh Rupees) as permanent alimony to the wife.