Supreme Court Grants Divorce on Grounds of Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage: Prakashchandra Joshi vs. Kuntal Prakashchandra Joshi (24 January 2024)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 24 January 2024
Citation: 2024 INSC 55
Judges: B.R. Gavai, J. and Prashant Kumar Mishra, J.

Can a marriage be dissolved if it has irretrievably broken down, even if one party does not consent? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a case where a couple had been living apart for 13 years. The core issue was whether the Court could use its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to grant a divorce, despite the absence of mutual consent and without the traditional grounds of cruelty or desertion being fully established. This judgment clarifies the circumstances under which a marriage can be dissolved when it is beyond repair. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra, with Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra authoring the opinion.

Case Background

The appellant, Prakashchandra Joshi, and the respondent, Kuntal Prakashchandra Joshi, were married on January 5, 2004, following an eight-year courtship. Both were Indian citizens who later obtained Canadian citizenship for financial reasons. They lived in Canada and had a son on May 21, 2010. In 2011, the appellant experienced health issues, including back and shoulder pain and skin problems. Due to a recession in Canada, the appellant lost his job, and the family returned to India on January 29, 2011. The respondent stayed at her matrimonial home for a short period before moving to her parental home on February 20, 2011. When the appellant asked her to return, she refused, expressing her desire to return to Canada, while the appellant was unwilling due to his health. Attempts to resolve the dispute through family interventions failed. The respondent then left for Canada with their son, and the appellant’s attempts to contact her were ignored.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The appellant initially filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, which went uncontested but was later withdrawn. Subsequently, the appellant filed a divorce petition citing cruelty and desertion. The Family Court dismissed the divorce petition, stating that the appellant had not established cruelty. The High Court of Judicature at Bombay also dismissed the appeal, agreeing that neither cruelty nor desertion was proven. The matter then reached the Supreme Court of India.

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court considered its powers under Article 142(1) of the Constitution of India, which allows the Court to pass orders necessary for doing “complete justice” in any cause or matter. The Court also referred to previous judgments that discussed the concept of “irretrievable breakdown of marriage” as a ground for divorce, even if not explicitly mentioned in the Hindu Marriage Act. The Court noted that while it cannot grant divorce as a matter of right, it can exercise discretion to dissolve a marriage that is beyond repair, ensuring that complete justice is done to both parties.

The relevant provision is Article 142(1) of the Constitution of India, which states:

“142. Enforcement of decrees and orders of Supreme Court and orders as to discovery, etc.
(1) The Supreme Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree or make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it, and any decree so passed or order so made shall be enforceable throughout the territory of India in such manner as may be prescribed by or under any law made by Parliament and, until provision in that behalf is so made, in such manner as the President may by order prescribe.”

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• The respondent deserted the appellant about 13 years ago and refused to cohabit with him.
• The couple has been living apart due to matrimonial discord for the last 13 years, with no prospect of reconciliation.
• The marriage has irretrievably broken down.
• The respondent’s conduct indicates that she is not willing to live with the appellant.
• The uncontroverted evidence establishes that the appellant was treated with mental cruelty by his wife, who left his company despite his objection.

The appellant relied on the decisions of the Supreme Court in Sukhendu Das vs. Rita Mukherjee [2017] 9 SCC 632 and Samar Ghosh vs. Jaya Ghosh [2007] 4 SCC 511 to support his arguments.

Respondent’s Arguments:

The respondent did not appear in court or present any arguments.

Submissions Table

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The main issue before the Supreme Court was:

1. Whether a decree for divorce can be granted for the reason that the marriage has irretrievably broken down.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Cases:

• Sukhendu Das vs. Rita Mukherjee [2017] 9 SCC 632 – Supreme Court of India: This case was cited by the appellant to support the contention that the marriage had irretrievably broken down.
• Samar Ghosh vs. Jaya Ghosh [2007] 4 SCC 511 – Supreme Court of India: This case was also cited by the appellant to support the argument of irretrievable breakdown of marriage.
• Shilpa Sailesh vs. Varun Sreenivasan [2023] SCC Online SC 544 – Supreme Court of India: This case was referred to by the court to emphasize that it has the power under Article 142(1) of the Constitution to do complete justice and grant divorce on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage.

Legal Provisions:

• Article 142(1) of the Constitution of India: This provision empowers the Supreme Court to pass orders necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter.

Authority Table

Judgment

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

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Court relied on Shilpa Sailesh vs. Varun Sreenivasan [2023] SCC Online SC 544* to emphasize its power under Article 142(1) of the Constitution to grant divorce on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage.
• The Court acknowledged the appellant’s reliance on Sukhendu Das vs. Rita Mukherjee [2017] 9 SCC 632* and Samar Ghosh vs. Jaya Ghosh [2007] 4 SCC 511* to support the argument of irretrievable breakdown of marriage.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision to grant a divorce was primarily influenced by the prolonged separation of the couple, which lasted for approximately 13 years. The respondent’s consistent absence from court proceedings and lack of communication further solidified the Court’s view that the marriage had irretrievably broken down. The Court emphasized that there was no possibility of the couple living together again, and continuing the legal relationship would be futile. The Court also considered the welfare of the parties involved and the need to provide a resolution to a dead marriage.

Fact:Law Ratio

Logical Reasoning

The Court noted that it had to be “fully convinced and satisfied that the marriage is totally unworkable, emotionally dead and beyond salvation and, therefore, dissolution of marriage is the right solution and the only way forward.” The Court also emphasized that the exercise of power under Article 142(1) is a discretionary power to do ‘complete justice’ to the parties.

The Court quoted from Shilpa Sailesh vs. Varun Sreenivasan [2023] SCC Online SC 544, stating, “this Court, in exercise of power under Article 142(1) of the Constitution of India, has the discretion to dissolve the marriage on the ground of its irretrievable breakdown. This discretionary power is to be exercised to do ‘complete justice’ to the parties, wherein this Court is satisfied that the facts established show that the marriage has completely failed and there is no possibility that the parties will cohabit together, and continuation of the formal legal relationship is unjustified.”

The Court also observed, “The period of separation should be sufficiently long, and anything above six years or more will be a relevant factor.”

The Court concluded, “Therefore, we have no hesitation in holding that the present is a case of irretrievable breakdown of marriage as there is no possibility of the couple staying together.”

Key Takeaways

• The Supreme Court can grant a divorce on the grounds of irretrievable breakdown of marriage under Article 142(1) of the Constitution of India.
• Prolonged separation, lack of communication, and absence from court proceedings can be indicators of irretrievable breakdown.
• The Court’s power under Article 142(1) is discretionary and is used to do “complete justice” to the parties.
• The Court must be convinced that the marriage is unworkable and beyond salvation before granting a divorce on these grounds.

Directions

The Supreme Court dissolved the marriage between the parties by a decree of divorce. The decree was to be drawn accordingly.

Development of Law

This judgment reinforces the principle that the Supreme Court can use its powers under Article 142(1) of the Constitution to grant divorce on the grounds of irretrievable breakdown of marriage, even when the traditional grounds for divorce are not fully met. This decision builds upon previous judgments and provides further clarity on the circumstances under which such a divorce can be granted. The ratio decidendi of this case is that the Supreme Court can dissolve a marriage on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage when the facts show that the marriage has completely failed and there is no possibility that the parties will cohabit together, and continuation of the formal legal relationship is unjustified.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and dissolved the marriage between Prakashchandra Joshi and Kuntal Prakashchandra Joshi, citing the irretrievable breakdown of their marriage. The decision was based on the fact that the couple had been living apart for 13 years with no contact, and the respondent had not responded to court summons. The Court exercised its powers under Article 142(1) of the Constitution to do complete justice and bring the matter to a conclusion.