Supreme Court Grants Divorce Citing Cruelty in Irretrievably Broken Marriage: Rakesh Raman vs. Kavita (2023)

Date of the Judgment: April 26, 2023
Citation: 2023 INSC 433
Judges: Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. and J.B. Pardiwala, J.

Can a marriage be dissolved when the relationship has irretrievably broken down, even if the traditional grounds for divorce are not fully met? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case where a couple had been living separately for 25 years, with multiple legal battles between them. The Court considered whether such a long separation and continuous litigation could constitute cruelty, warranting a divorce decree. This judgment explores the intersection of irretrievable breakdown of marriage and cruelty as grounds for divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

Case Background

The appellant, Shri Rakesh Raman, and the respondent, Smt. Kavita, were married on April 16, 1994, in Delhi. Unfortunately, their marital life was fraught with discord from the beginning. The husband alleged that his wife was unhappy with their living conditions and used offensive language towards him. He also claimed that she terminated a pregnancy in September 1994 without his knowledge, an allegation she denied. The wife left the matrimonial home multiple times, leading to interventions by well-wishers. On August 24, 1998, the husband alleged he was beaten by his wife and her brother. Subsequently, on December 17, 1998, the wife filed a complaint against the husband and his brother under Section 498A and 406 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), leading to their arrest. She also initiated other legal proceedings against the husband and his family members. The husband, burdened by these litigations, filed for divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, citing cruelty and desertion.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Additional District Judge (North), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, initially decreed the husband’s suit for divorce on May 2, 2009. The High Court of Delhi, however, set aside this order on April 8, 2011, dismissing the husband’s petition. The High Court held that the wife’s actions did not constitute desertion or cruelty, as she was merely exercising her legal rights. The husband then filed a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court, which granted leave on February 26, 2013.

Legal Framework

The case revolves around Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, which states that a marriage can be dissolved by a decree of divorce if 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, which, while not explicitly a ground for divorce under the Act, has been recognized by the Supreme Court in previous judgments as a factor in determining cruelty.

Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 states:

“Any marriage solemnized, whether before or after the commencement of this Act, may, on a petition presented by either the husband or the wife, be dissolved by a decree of divorce on the ground that the other party—has, after the solemnization of the marriage, treated the petitioner with cruelty.”

Arguments

Appellant (Husband)’s Arguments:

• The husband argued that his wife’s actions, including the multiple police complaints and litigations, constituted cruelty.
• He emphasized that the couple had been living separately for 25 years, and there was no possibility of reconciliation.
• He contended that the marriage had irretrievably broken down.

Respondent (Wife)’s Arguments:

• The wife denied deserting her husband or inflicting cruelty on him.
• She claimed she was only using legal avenues available to her.
• She alleged that her ornaments (stridhan) were taken away and never returned, forcing her to file cases under Sections 498A & 406 IPC.
• She stated that she had made efforts for reconciliation, but the husband did not cooperate.
• She expressed a desire to save the marriage and requested mediation.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a dedicated section. However, the core issue that the court addressed was:

• Whether the long separation, multiple litigations, and irretrievable breakdown of the marriage constitute cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, warranting a decree of divorce.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

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

Authorities

The Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Naveen Kohli v. Neelu Kohli [(2006) 4 SCC 558]: The Supreme Court cited this case to support its view that repeated filing of criminal cases by one spouse against the other constitutes cruelty.
• K. Srinivas Rao v. D.A. Deepa [(2013) 5 SCC 226]: This case was used to reiterate the principle established in Naveen Kohli, further solidifying the argument that repeated litigation amounts to cruelty.
• 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]: These cases were cited to emphasize that an irretrievably broken marriage, characterized by a long period of separation and no possibility of reconciliation, is a valid consideration in the context of cruelty.
• Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh [(2007) 4 SCC 511]: This judgment was extensively relied upon to define cruelty, highlighting that it can be both physical and mental, and that the entire matrimonial relationship must be considered. The Court also emphasized that cruelty can be unintentional and that the impact of the conduct on the complaining spouse is paramount.
• Halsbury’s Laws of England: The Court used the definition of cruelty from Halsbury’s Laws of England to support its view that cruelty can be inferred from injurious reproaches, complaints, accusations, or taunts, and that the entire matrimonial relationship must be considered.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following factors:

• Long Separation: The couple had been living separately for 25 years, indicating a complete breakdown of the marital relationship.
• Multiple Litigations: The numerous legal battles between the parties demonstrated a deep-seated animosity and lack of any meaningful bond.
• Irretrievable Breakdown: The Court recognized that the marriage had irretrievably broken down, with no possibility of reconciliation.
• Cruelty: The Court concluded that the cumulative effect of the long separation, multiple litigations, and the overall acrimonious relationship constituted cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
• Impact on Parties: The Court noted that continuing the marriage would only perpetuate cruelty on both sides.

Fact:Law Ratio

The Court’s decision was influenced more by the factual circumstances of the case (long separation, multiple litigations) than by pure legal interpretations. The legal framework was used to support the factual findings of cruelty.

Logical Reasoning

Key Takeaways

• A long period of separation, coupled with multiple litigations and a complete breakdown of the marital bond, can constitute cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
• The concept of irretrievable breakdown of marriage, while not a direct ground for divorce, is a significant factor in determining cruelty.
• Continuing a marriage that has irretrievably broken down can be considered cruelty to both parties.
• The Court has the power to grant a decree of divorce in such cases, even if the traditional grounds for divorce are not fully met.

Directions

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

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a long separation, coupled with multiple litigations and a complete breakdown of the marital bond, can constitute cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. This judgment expands the interpretation of cruelty to include situations where the marriage has irretrievably broken down, even if there is no direct act of physical violence or abuse. It acknowledges that continuing such a marriage would only perpetuate cruelty on both sides. This is a significant development in matrimonial law, recognizing the reality of broken marriages and the need for legal recourse in such situations.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Shri Rakesh Raman vs. Smt. Kavita provides a significant interpretation of cruelty under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. By granting a divorce decree, the Court recognized that a marriage that has irretrievably broken down, marked by long separation and multiple litigations, can constitute cruelty, even in the absence of direct acts of violence. This decision underscores the importance of considering the overall marital relationship and the impact of the situation on both parties. The Court’s direction for permanent alimony also ensures the financial security of the wife, acknowledging the need for equitable solutions in such cases.

Category

Parent Category: Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

Child Categories:

• Section 13, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
• Cruelty
• Divorce
• Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage
• Matrimonial Law
• Family Law
• Separation
• Litigation

FAQ

Q: What is considered cruelty in a marriage according to this judgment?

A: According to this judgment, cruelty is not just physical violence but also includes mental cruelty arising from a long separation, multiple litigations, and the irretrievable breakdown of the marital bond. The court considers the cumulative effect of these factors.

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

A: While irretrievable breakdown is not a direct ground for divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the Supreme Court has recognized it as a significant factor in determining cruelty. If a marriage has irretrievably broken down, it can be a valid consideration for granting a divorce.

Q: What if the wife files multiple criminal cases against the husband?

A: The Supreme Court has held that repeatedly filing criminal cases by one spouse against the other can constitute cruelty. This, along with other factors like long separation, can be a reason for granting a divorce.

Q: What is permanent alimony?

A: Permanent alimony is a one-time payment made by one spouse to the other upon divorce. In this case, the husband was directed to pay Rs. 30,00,000 to the wife as permanent alimony to ensure her financial security.

Q: What should I do if I am in a marriage that has broken down?

A: If you are in a marriage that has broken down, it is advisable to seek legal counsel to understand your rights and options. This judgment provides a precedent for considering long separations and multiple litigations as grounds for divorce, but each case is unique and needs to be evaluated based on its specific facts.