Irretrievable Breakdown Of Marriage Can't Be Used To Advantage Of Party Responsible For Collapse Of Marriage : Supreme Court

In a recent case, the Supreme Court expressed dismay over the mechanical approach adopted by the Family Court in granting a divorce decree against the wife despite no fault being attributed to her..

The Court said that the husband cannot be benefitted from seeking annulment of the marriage when he was solely responsible for the breakdown of the marital relationship.

“The bogey of irretrievably breaking down of marriage cannot be used to the advantage of a party (husband in this case) who is solely responsible for tearing down the marital relationship.”, the bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan said.

It was a case where soon after a child was born out of wedlock, the husband/respondent deserted his wife/appellant and the child. Consequently, a divorce petition was filed by the husband on the ground of cruelty which was decreed by the family court against the wife, following which on appeal the High Court set aside the decree and remanded the matter back to the family court.

Subsequently, another decree was passed by the family court on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage which, in appeal, was set aside by the High Court and the matter was remanded back to the Family Court.

The third time also luck did not favor the wife, as the husband secured a decree of divorce from the Family Court. However, this time decree was granted on payment of permanent alimony of Rs.25,00,000/- (Rupees twenty-five lakhs). The High Court didn't interfere with the decree but reduced the permanent alimony amount to Rs. 20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lakhs).

The husband didn't prefer an appeal against the grant of a permanent alimony amount, however, the wife preferred the appeal before the Supreme Court against the High Court's decision reducing the permanent alimony amount granted by the family court.

Upon perusing the facts of the case, the Court opined that it was the husband who deserted her wife and son and subjected his wife to extreme cruelty all these years, and never came forward to render any assistance for securing a better future of his own son or offered to pay even for his school education.

“Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, it seems to us that the judicial system has been grossly injudicious to the appellant and her minor child, who has now attained majority. We say so for the reason that it is the respondent who subjected the appellant to extreme cruelty all these years, and never came forward to render any assistance for securing a better future of his own son or offered to pay even for his school education.”, the Court said.

“The mechanical manner in which the Family Court kept on passing decrees of divorce against the appellant not only exhibit a lack of sensitivity, but also suggests a hidden prejudice against the appellant. The courts ought not to have accorded any premium to the respondent's own misdemeanors.”, the Court added.

Since the parties were living separately since the year 1992 or so, therefore the Court deemed fit to sustain the decree of divorce granted by the Family Court. However, the Court directed the respondent/husband to pay an additional Rs. 10,00,000/- (Ten Lakhs Rupees) to the appellant/wife over and above the sum already paid to the appellant. Further, the Court granted ownership over the property where the Appellant along with her son are living and directed the respondent to not interfere in the peaceful ownership and possessory rights of the appellant and her son.

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) Mr. Shreyas Ranjan, Adv. Mr. Balaji Srinivasan, AOR

For Respondent(s) Mr. C.M.Angadi, Adv. Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, AOR

Case Title: PRABHAVATHI @ PRABHAMANI VERSUS LAKSHMEESHA M.C., SLP(C) No. 28201/2023

Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 643

Click here to read/download the judgment