Supreme Court Grants Divorce Citing Irretrievable Breakdown: Roopa Soni vs. Kamalnarayan Soni (2023)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: September 6, 2023

Citation: 2023 INSC 814

Judges: Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice M.M. Sundresh. The judgment was authored by Justice M.M. Sundresh.

Can a marriage be dissolved when it has irretrievably broken down, even if traditional grounds for divorce are not fully established? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case where a couple had been living separately for over a decade, marked by mutual allegations and a complete breakdown of their relationship. The Court, recognizing the futility of maintaining a marriage that exists only on paper, granted a decree of divorce, emphasizing the need for a pragmatic and empathetic approach in matrimonial disputes.

Case Background

The marriage between Smt. Roopa Soni (the appellant) and Kamalnarayan Soni (the respondent) was solemnized in 2002. Their relationship began to deteriorate after the birth of their child, with disputes arising from 2006 onwards. The appellant filed a complaint against the respondent under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The respondent, in turn, questioned the appellant’s character, alleging she had left the matrimonial home and was living in adultery, even demanding a medical examination to prove the same. This request was later nullified by the High Court. The couple has been living separately for approximately 15 years.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The Trial Court and the High Court of Chhattisgarh rejected the plea for divorce, adopting a hyper-technical and pedantic approach. The Supreme Court noted that despite the serious allegations made by both parties, the lower courts failed to recognize the irretrievable breakdown of the marriage. The High Court of Chhattisgarh upheld the decision of the Trial Court in F.A. (M) No. 115 of 2011, leading to the final appeal before the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, which provides grounds for divorce. Specifically, the judgment discusses Section 13(1)(ia), which deals with cruelty as a ground for divorce. The court noted that the Amending Act of 1976 (Act 68 of 1976) introduced clauses (ia) and (ib) to Section 13 to liberalize the grant of divorce. The Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Amendment Act clearly states the intention to liberalize divorce provisions, expedite proceedings, and remove anomalies. The court emphasized that the term ‘cruelty’ under Section 13(1)(ia) has no fixed meaning and must be applied contextually, considering individual circumstances.

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

“13. Divorce.—(1) 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—
(i) has, after the solemnization of the marriage, had voluntary sexual intercourse with any person other than his or her spouse; or
(ia) has, after the solemnization of the marriage, treated the petitioner with cruelty; or
(ib) has deserted the petitioner for a continuous period of not less than two years immediately preceding the presentation of the petition; or
(ii) has ceased to be a Hindu by conversion to another religion; or
(iii) has been incurably of unsound mind, or has been suffering continuously or intermittently from mental disorder of such a kind and to such an extent that the petitioner cannot reasonably be expected to live with the respondent.
Explanation.—In this clause,—
(a) the expression “mental disorder” means mental illness, arrested or incomplete development of mind, psychopathic disorder or any other disorder or disability of mind and includes schizophrenia;
(b) the expression “psychopathic disorder” means a persistent disorder or disability of mind (whether or not including sub-normality of intelligence) which results in abnormally aggressive or seriously irresponsible conduct on the part of the other party, and whether or not it requires or is susceptible to medical treatment; or
xxxxxxxxx
(v) has been suffering from venereal disease in a communicable form; or
(vi) has renounced the world by entering any religious order; or
(vii) has not been heard of as being alive for a period of seven years or more by those persons who would naturally have heard of it, had that party been alive;
[Explanation.—In this sub-section, the expression “desertion” means the desertion of the petitioner by the other party to the marriage without reasonable cause and without the consent or against the wish of such party, and includes the wilful neglect of the petitioner by the other party to the marriage, and its grammatical variations and cognate expressions shall be construed accordingly].
(1A) Either party to a marriage, whether solemnized before or after the commencement of this Act, may also present a petition for the dissolution of the marriage by a decree of divorce on the ground—
(i) that there has been no resumption of cohabitation as between the parties to the marriage for a period of one year or upwards after the passing of a decree for judicial separation in a proceeding to which they were parties; or
(ii) that there has been no restitution of conjugal rights as between the parties to the marriage for a period of one year or upwards after the passing of a decree for restitution of conjugal rights in a proceeding to which they were parties.”

Arguments

The appellant-Wife argued that the marriage had irretrievably broken down due to the respondent’s cruelty and accusations. She highlighted the fact that they had been living separately for a long period and there was no possibility of reconciliation. The respondent-Husband, on the other hand, had questioned the character of the appellant-Wife, alleging adultery and demanding a medical examination, which was later nullified by the High Court. He also claimed that the appellant had left the matrimonial home.

The submissions of both parties are summarised below:

Innovativeness of the argument: The appellant’s argument for divorce based on the irretrievable breakdown of the marriage, despite not fully meeting the traditional grounds, shows an innovative approach, recognizing the practical realities of the situation.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a numbered list but the core issue was whether the facts of the case, particularly the long separation and mutual allegations, justified granting a decree of divorce based on the irretrievable breakdown of marriage.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered several authorities to arrive at its decision. These include:

Judgment

The Supreme Court set aside the judgments of the Trial Court and the High Court, granting a decree of divorce. The Court emphasized that the marriage had irretrievably broken down, and continuing it would only prolong the agony of both parties. The Court also highlighted the need for a pragmatic approach in matrimonial disputes, considering the social and economic realities of the parties.

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Vishwanath Agrawal v. Sarla Vishwanath Agrawal, (2012) 7 SCC 288*: The Court followed this case to emphasize that the meaning of “cruelty” depends on the social context and individual circumstances.
• Shobha Rani v. Madhukar Reddi, (1988) 1 SCC 105*: The Court followed this case to highlight that the concept of cruelty is not static and changes with time.
• Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh, (2007) 4 SCC 511*: The Court followed this case to reiterate that mental cruelty is not a fixed concept and varies from person to person.
• Dr. N.G. Dastane v. Mrs. S. Dastane, (1975) 2 SCC 326*: The Court followed this case to clarify that the standard of proof in matrimonial cases is preponderance of probabilities, not beyond reasonable doubt.
• Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan, 2023 (6) SCALE 402*: The Court followed this case to apply the concept of irretrievable breakdown of marriage.
• V. Bhagat v. D. Bhagat, (1994) 1 SCC 337*: The Court followed this case to define mental cruelty as conduct that makes it impossible for the other party to live with the other.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court was primarily influenced by the fact that the marriage had irretrievably broken down. The prolonged separation, the serious allegations made by both parties, and the lack of any possibility of reconciliation weighed heavily in the Court’s decision. The Court also emphasized the need to adopt a holistic and empathetic approach in matrimonial disputes, considering the social and economic realities of the parties involved. The Court was of the view that continuing a marriage that existed only on paper would be an exercise in futility.

The sentiment analysis of the reasons given by the Supreme Court is as follows:

Fact:Law

The Court’s decision was influenced more by the factual circumstances of the case, such as the prolonged separation and mutual allegations, than by strict legal interpretations.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court considered the alternative of not granting the divorce and forcing the parties to remain in a legally recognized but practically non-existent marriage. However, this was rejected as it would not serve any purpose and would only perpetuate the agony of both parties. The final decision was reached by considering the factual scenario, the lack of any possibility of reconciliation, and the need for a pragmatic solution.

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

• The marriage had irretrievably broken down.
• The parties had been living separately for a long period.
• There were serious allegations made by both sides.
• There was no possibility of reconciliation.
• Continuing the marriage would only prolong the agony of both parties.

The Supreme Court did not have any dissenting opinions. The judgment was delivered by a bench of two judges, with Justice M.M. Sundresh authoring the opinion.

The Court’s decision has significant implications for future cases, indicating a move towards recognizing the irretrievable breakdown of marriage as a valid ground for divorce, even if traditional grounds are not fully met. This decision highlights the need for a practical and empathetic approach in matrimonial disputes, considering the individual circumstances of the parties.

The Court did not introduce any new doctrines or legal principles, but it reinforced the existing principle of considering the irretrievable breakdown of marriage and the need for a contextual approach in matrimonial disputes.

The Court’s decision reflects a shift towards a more pragmatic and empathetic approach to matrimonial disputes, recognizing that forcing parties to remain in a broken marriage is not in the interest of either party or society.

The Court quoted the following from the judgment:

“The aforesaid facts would certainly make out a case for divorce and thus, the ratio laid down by a Constitution Bench of this Court in Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan, 2023 (6) SCALE 402 would be applicable on all fours”

“For a decade and half, the parties have been living separately. As fairly stated at the Bar, the marriage does not survive any longer, and the relationship was terminated otherwise except by a formal decree of divorce. The status quo continues, awaiting an approval from this Court.”

“The Trial Court and the High Court adopted a hyper-technical and pedantic approach in declining the decree of divorce. It is not as if the respondent-Husband is willing to live with the appellant–Wife.”

Key Takeaways

• Divorce can be granted based on the irretrievable breakdown of marriage, even if traditional grounds are not fully met.
• Courts must adopt a holistic and empathetic approach in matrimonial disputes.
• Prolonged separation and mutual allegations can be considered as evidence of irretrievable breakdown.
• The focus is shifting towards a more pragmatic approach, recognizing the futility of maintaining a marriage that exists only on paper.
• The decision reinforces the principle of considering the social and economic realities of the parties involved.

Directions

The Supreme Court did not give any specific directions, other than setting aside the judgments of the Trial Court and the High Court and granting a decree of divorce.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a divorce can be granted based on the irretrievable breakdown of marriage, even if the traditional grounds for divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 are not fully met. This decision reinforces the previous position of law as laid down in Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan and other cases, and emphasizes the need for a pragmatic and empathetic approach in matrimonial disputes.

Conclusion

In Smt. Roopa Soni vs. Kamalnarayan Soni, the Supreme Court granted a decree of divorce, recognizing the irretrievable breakdown of the marriage. The Court set aside the judgments of the Trial Court and the High Court, emphasizing the need for a pragmatic and empathetic approach in matrimonial disputes. This decision highlights the evolving interpretation of cruelty and the importance of considering the social and economic realities of the parties involved.

Category

• Matrimonial Law
  • Divorce
  • Cruelty
  • Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage
• Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
  • Section 13, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
  • Section 13(1)(ia), Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
• Supreme Court of India
  • Landmark Judgment
  • Case Analysis