Keeping Spouses Together Despite Irretrievable Breakdown Of Marriage Is Cruelty To Both Parties : Supreme Court Dissolves Marriage

The Supreme Court observed in a recent judgment that keeping the parties together despite irretrievable breakdown of marriage amounts to cruelty on both sides.

Continued bitterness, dead emotions and long separation, in the given facts and circumstances of a case, can be construed as a case of “irretrievable breakdown of marriage", the bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Sudhanshu Dhulia observed while invoking its power under Article 142 of Constitution to dissolve a marriage.

The court noted that when there is irretrievable breakdown of marriage then dissolution of marriage is the only solution.

In this case, the husband had filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for Restitution of Conjugal Rights) on 09.11.2012 which was dismissed by the Family Court on 29.08.2013. An appeal was filed before the High Court which was subsequently withdrawn. The petition for dissolution of marriage on ground of cruelty and desertion, was later filed before the Family Court which was also dismissed. The appeal filed by the husband/appellant against that order was also dismissed by the High Court. 

In appeal filed by the Husband, the Apex Court bench observed that this is a classic case of irretrievable breakdown of marriage. The Court referred to the recent decision Rakesh Raman v. Kavita 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 353 which held that irretrievably broken down marriages can be dissolved on the ground of cruelty. Reliance was also placed on Shilpa Shailesh v.Varun Sreenivasan 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 375 where a Constitution Bench ruled that Article 142 can be invoked to dissolve marriages on the ground of irretrievable breakdown.

It said:

"Nothing would give us more satisfaction if the two could work out their differences and decide to live together, if only for the sake of their child. But under the circumstances, with the rigid attitude of both the parties, who have failed to appreciate the beauty of compromise, we have been forced to convince ourselves, albeit regrettably, that the two cannot now live together. Twelve years of separation, is a sufficiently long period of time to have sapped all emotions which the two perhaps may have had once for each other. We therefore cannot take the same hopeful view as that of the High Court, which still believes that the matrimonial bond between the two has not ruptured beyond repair or that the two cannot still give a new lease of life to their relation. Frankly, no matter how much we would have liked this to happen but in reality, this is a possibility, which under the facts and circumstances of the case, can only be called wishful... Whatever may be the justification for the two living separately, with so much of time gone by, any marital love or affection, which may have been between the parties, seems to have dried up."

While declaring that the marriage stands dissolved, the court observed that the appellant-husband owes his duty of bearing expenses for schooling and education of his girl child. Thus it directed him to deposit an amount of Rs.20,00,000/­ in this regard.

R vs S | 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 727 | CA 5454/ 2023