Marriage Considered 'Pious' In Indian Society: Divorce On Ground Of 'Irretrievable Breakdown Of Marriage' Not Always Desirable: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Tuesday held that it can exercise its discretion under the inherent powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India for dissolving a marriage on the ground of 'irretrievable breakdown of marriage', even when one of the spouses opposes the dissolution of marriage. However, the Court said that such discretion must be exercised with great care and caution.

The Court also clarified that since the institution of marriage is considered to be a 'pious' and 'spiritual' union in Indian society, a strait-jacket formula for the grant of relief of divorce under Article 142 on the ground of 'irretrievable break down of marriage' may not be desirable.

A bench of Justice Aniruddha Bose and Justice Bela M Trivedi was considering a plea for divorce by a husband aged about 89 years from his wife aged about 82 years. The wife had expressed her desire to continue in the marriage and thus the Court refused to grant divorce.

“..in our opinion, one should not be oblivious to the fact that the institution of marriage occupies an important place and plays an important role in the society. Despite the increasing trend of filing the Divorce proceedings in the courts of law, the institution of marriage is still considered to be a pious, spiritual, and invaluable emotional life-net between the husband and the wife in the Indian society. It is governed not only by the letters of law but by the social norms as well. So many other relationships stem from and thrive on the matrimonial relationships in the society. Therefore, it would not be desirable to accept the formula of “irretrievable break down of marriage” as a strait-jacket formula for the grant of relief of divorce under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, ” the Court said.

“Should the irretrievable breakdown of marriage necessarily result in the dissolution of marriage in exercise of powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, when such is not a ground for divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act 1955?” was the question posed before the Apex Court in this matter.

In this regard, the Court referred to the recent Constitution Bench decision in the case of Shilpa Shailesh vs. Varun Sreenivasan 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 375, which said that the power under Art. 142 may be exercised with great care and caution to do 'complete justice'.

“..there remains no shadow of doubt that this Court can depart from the procedure as well as the substantive laws, and exercise its discretion under Article 142 for dissolving the marriage between the parties by balancing out the equities between the conflicting claims of the parties, however, such discretion should be exercised with great care and caution. It has also laid down that this discretionary power could be exercised for dissolving the marriage on the ground of its irretrievable break down to do “complete justice,” though one of the spouses opposes the prayer for dissolution of marriage.”

Considering the facts of the case, the Court refused to grant a decree of divorce since the respondent wife had expressed her willingness to take care of her husband and informed the court that she did not wish to die with the label of being a 'divorced woman'.

“The respondent all throughout her life has maintained the sacred relationship since 1963 and has taken care of her three children all these years, despite the fact that the appellant-husband had exhibited total hostility towards them. The respondent is still ready and willing to take care of her husband and does not wish to leave him alone at this stage of life. She has also expressed her sentiments that she does not want to die with the stigma of being a “divorcee” woman. In contemporary society, it may not constitute to be stigma but here we are concerned with the respondent's own sentiment,” the Court said. 

The Court said allowing divorce in such a situation would cause injustice to the wife and hence refused to grant a decree of divorce as prayed for by the husband.

“Under the circumstances, considering and respecting the sentiments of the respondent wife, the Court is of the opinion that exercising the discretion in favour of  the appellant under Article 142 by dissolving the marriage between parties on the ground that the marriage has irretrievably broken down, would not be doing “complete justice” to the parties, would rather be doing injustice to the respondent, “ the Court stated in its order. 

Adv. Madhurima Tatia appeared for the Respondent wife and Adv. Vipin Gogia appeared for the Appellant husband. 

Case Title: Dr. Nirmal Singh Panesar V. Mrs. Paramjit Kaur Panesar @ Ajinder Kaur Panesar, Civil Appeal No.2045 of 2011

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 873

Click here to read/download judgment