Read Time: 15 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court recently observed that forcing a marriage to persist despite being a source of unhappiness and conflict defeats the institution's purpose, as it dissolved a 2002 matrimonial alliance between a software engineer couple.

"Marriage is a relationship built on mutual trust, companionship, and shared experiences. When these essential elements are missing for an extended period, the marital bond becomes a mere legal formality devoid of any substance. This court has consistently held that prolonged separation, coupled with inability to reconcile, is a relevant factor in deciding matrimonial disputes," a bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Prasanna B Varale bench said.

The apex court upheld the judgment of the Madras High Court granting a decree of divorce to the respondent-husband and rejected the appellant-wife's submissions as lacking in merit, both on procedural and substantive grounds.

"This court reiterates that cruelty, long separation, and irretrievable breakdown of marriage, as established in this case, and thus, provide sufficient justification for dissolving the marriage," the bench said, directing the man to pay Rs 50 lakh as permanent alimony to the woman and Rs 50 lakh to the daughter born to the couple in 2003.

In the present case, the length of separation and the evident animosity between the parties makes it clear that there is no possibility of the marriage being revived, the bench noted

The trial court had dismissed the petition filed by the man for divorce. The first appellate court also dismissed his plea that the appellant-wife had voluntarily deserted him without cause or inflicted mental cruelty. Instead, it noted that she had expressed a desire for reconciliation.

The man then approached the High Court contending that the woman subjected him to cruelty, both mental and physical. He also argued that her actions, including filing false cases against him and deserting the matrimonial home, amounted to mental cruelty. He further claimed that despite his repeated attempts to reconcile, the appellant-wife remained adamant and disinterested in reuniting, which led to the breakdown of the marriage.

The High Court found that the respondent-husband had sufficiently established the grounds of cruelty and desertion under Section 13(1)(ia) and (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. It held that the wifet’s false criminal complaint and her indifference to reconciliation efforts caused significant mental agony to the husband, amounting to cruelty. Additionally, her prolonged separation without reasonable cause constituted desertio, it highlighted.

The High Court, therefore, dissolved the marriage and set aside the decisions of the trial court and the first appellate court, granting a decree of divorce to the husband. In its judgment, it noted that maintaining the marital tie under these circumstances was contrary to public interest and the principles of justice.

Against the decision of the High Court, the appellant woman contended before the apex court that the High Court had erred and overstepped its jurisdiction under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which allows intervention only in cases involving a substantial question of law.

The appellant-wife asserted that the High Court introduced an entirely new ground—whether the marriage had irretrievably broken down—without this issue being argued in the earlier proceedings. This, she argued, went against established principles that the High Court cannot reappreciate evidence or interfere with findings unless they are unsupported by evidence, based on a misreading of material evidence, or are manifestly unreasonable.

The appellant also submitted that the High Court erred in addressing the issue of condonation under Section 23(1)(b) of HMA.

She also underscored that the respondent-husband did not seek divorce on the grounds of desertion under Section 13(1)(ib) of HMA but instead benefited from his own wrongful actions. She claimed that the husband deserted her and then sought divorce on fabricated grounds.

The wife stated that she did not wish to burden her daughter with the stigma of divorce, nor was she seeking financial support from the husband. She simply wished to uphold her dignity and safeguard her family’s reputation.

The man, on the opposite, submitted that the marriage had irretrievably broken down and should be dissolved to allow both parties to move on with their lives. He submitted that the wife subjected him to cruelty, including filing frivolous criminal complaints against him and his family. He claimed that these complaints caused mental agony and created an irreparable rift between the parties.

He claimed that the wife’s unwillingness to accept the breakdown of the marriage had prolonged the litigation unnecessarily. He submitted that granting a divorce would not only end the prolonged legal battle but also allow both parties to rebuild their lives independently.

After having heard the arguments, the top court held that the evidence on record unequivocally demonstrated grounds of cruelty, prolonged separation, and an irretrievable breakdown of the marital relationship.

These grounds, coupled with legal precedents cited by the High Court, leave no room for doubt that the marriage has lost its essence and that its continuation would serve no meaningful purpose, it said.

Court pointed out one of the primary grounds for the dissolution of the marriage was the appellant’s conduct, which constituted mental cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of HMA.

The husband has provided sufficient evidence to show that the appellant-wife was engaged in a pattern of behavior that caused him immense mental and emotional distress. This included filing false and baseless criminal complaints against the respondent and his family, which not only strained their relationship but also caused significant damage to his reputation and peace of mind, it noted.

Relying upon N G Dastane Vs S Dastane (1975), the court held that appellant’s conduct, including the initiation of frivolous legal proceedings, fell squarely within the definition of mental cruelty.

Moreover, the court felt that the evidence suggested that the wife’s actions were not isolated incidents but formed a pattern of behavior that made cohabitation impossible.

In V Bhagat Vs D Bhagat (1994), this Court emphasized that sustained and deliberate acts of cruelty make it unreasonable to expect one spouse to continue living with the other, it emphasised.

"The fact that the parties have been living separately for two decades now further reinforces the conclusion that the marriage is no longer viable," the bench opined, citing K Srinivas Rao Vs D A Deepa (2013), which stated prolonged separation creates a presumption of the marriage having irretrievably broken down.

The bench also noted that although irretrievable breakdown of marriage is not a statutory ground for divorce under the HMA, yet the top court has, in appropriate cases, invoked its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to grant relief where the marriage is beyond repair.

The bench held the evidence in the present case pointed unequivocally to an irretrievable breakdown of the marriage.

"The appellant and the respondent have been embroiled in legal disputes for years, with no signs of reconciliation. The respondent has expressed his desire to move on with his life, while the appellant, despite her assertions to the contrary, has failed to demonstrate any genuine willingness to repair the relationship," the bench pointed out.

Therefore, it opined that continuation of the marriage would only lead to further animosity and litigation, causing harm to both parties.

Case Title: Amutha Vs A R Subramanian