Hindu Marriage Act, 1955: s. 13(1)(ia) and (ib) – Divorce – Grounds of cruelty and desertion – Marital discord between the parties – Petition for dissolution of marriage by the husband on the ground that the wife treated him with cruelty and deserted him,that there was no co-habitation between the parties, and that the wife had filed multiple false and frivolous criminal cases against him – Trial court passed a decree of divorce holding that the wife had deserted the husband and had meted out cruel behaviour against him – However, the High Court set aside the order – On appeal, held: There are bitter allegations of cruelty and desertion from both the sides, the marital relationship has broken down irretrievably, there is a long separation of 25 years, absence of cohabitation, no child out of the wedlock, with multiple court cases between the parties – Repeated efforts for reconciliation by the Courts has failed – Marital relationship which has only become more bitter and acrimonious over the years, does nothing but inflicts cruelty on both the sides – To keep the façade of this broken marriage alive would be doing injustice to both the parties – Marriage being irretrievably broken down spells cruelty, thus, a ground for dissolution of marriage u/s.13(1)(ia) – Judgement by the High Court set aside and decree of divorce is granted.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The husband and wife, have been living separately since the last 25 years. There is no child out of the wedlock. There are bitter allegations of cruelty and desertion from both the sides and multiple litigations between the two in the last more than 25 years. This embittered relationship between the appellant and the respondent which has not witnessed any moment of peace for the last 25 years is a marital relationship only on paper. The fact is that this relationship has broken down irretrievably long back. Other aspect to be considered is the fact that for the last 25 years the appellant and respondent, are living separately, and have not cohabitated. There is absolutely no scope of reconciliation between the parties. There is in fact no bond between the two and as the Law Commission in its 71st report said about such a marriage, which is a marriage which has de facto broken down, and only needs a de jure recognition by the law. The same was reiterated by the Law Commission in its 217th report. [Paras 10, 12][558-A-B, E-F]
1.2 The view taken by the High Court that mere filing of criminal cases by the wife does not constitute cruelty as what has also to be seen are the circumstances under which cases were filed, is a finding is not to be disregarded totally, in fact as a pure proposition of law it may be correct, but then the entire facts of the case are to be closely examined. When the facts as they exist are taken into consideration, the continuation of this marriage would mean continuation of cruelty, which each one inflicts on the other. Irretrievable breakdown of a marriage may not be a ground for dissolution of marriage, under the Hindu Marriage Act, but cruelty is. A marriage can be dissolved by a decree of divorce, inter alia, on the ground when the other party “has, after the solemnization of the marriage treated the petitioner with cruelty”. A marital relationship which has only become more bitter and acrimonious over the years, does nothing but inflicts cruelty on both the sides. To keep the façade of this broken marriage alive would be doing injustice to both the parties. A marriage which has broken down irretrievably, spells cruelty to both the parties, as in such a relationship each party is treating the other with cruelty. It is therefore a ground for dissolution of marriage under Section 13(1)(ia). [Para 16][560-D-G]
1.3 The matrimonial bond is completely broken and is beyond repair. This relationship must end as its continuation is causing cruelty on both the sides. 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. Therefore, in a given case, where the marital relationship has broken down irretrievably, where there is a long separation and absence of cohabitation (as in the instant case for the last 25 years), with multiple Court cases between the parties; then continuation of such a ‘marriage’ would only mean giving sanction to cruelty which each is inflicting on the other. A dissolution of this marriage would affect only the two parties as there is no child out of the wedlock. [Para 18][562-C-E]
1.4 Under these circumstances, the order of the trial court is upheld, though for different grounds given and the order of the High Court is set aside and a decree of divorce is granted to the appellant/husband. Their marriage shall stand dissolved. However, considering the fact that the appellant/husband is an employee in Life Insurance Corporation present salary is more than Rs.1,00,000/- (One Lakh Rupees) per month, it is deemed fit and proper that he gives an amount of Rs.30,00,000/- (Thirty Lakh Rupees) to the respondent/wife as permanent alimony. [Paras 19, 20][562-F-H]
Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh (2007) 4 SCC 511- relied on.
Naveen Kohli v. Neelu Kohli (2006) 4 SCC 558; K. Srinivas Rao v. D.A. Deepa (2013) 5 SCC 226; R. Srinivas Kumar v. R. Shametha (2019) 9 SCC 409; Munish Kakkar v. Nidhi Kakkar (2020) 14 SCC 657; Neha Tyagi v. Lieutenant Colonel Deepak Tyagi (2022)
3 SCC 86 - referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.