SC dissolves marriage citing irretrievable breakdown, orders compensation of Rs 13 lakh

Last update:October 28, 2024, 15:35 IST

The husband had filed a petition under section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for grant of divorce decree alleging that the petitioner wife had breached the trust by having a relationship with another man.

The court considered that the continuation of the proceedings before the court of first instance could only be an ordeal that both parties would have to endure. (Getty)

The Supreme Court recently observed that it can depart from both procedural and substantive laws as long as the decision is exercised based on considerations of fundamental, general and specific public policy.

Citing the constitutional court’s decision in Shilpa Sailesh Vs Varun Sreenivasan (2023), a bench comprising Justices BR Gavai, Aravind Kumar and KV Vishwanathan dissolved the marriage of a couple solemnized in 2013.

The court noted that it has also been held that in exercise of the power conferred by Article 142(1) of the Constitution, this court has the discretion to dissolve the marriage on the ground of its irretrievable breakdown, and that this power discretion must be exercised to do ‘complete justice’ to the parties, when this court is satisfied that the established facts show that the marriage has completely failed and there is no possibility of the parties living together, and the continuation of the formal legal relationship is unjustified .

The matter before the high court arose out of a transfer petition filed by the wife seeking transfer of pending proceedings under the Hindu Marriage Act before the court of the Chief Justice, Family Courts, Roorkee, Uttarakhand, to the family court , Patiala House Courts. , New Delhi.

The husband had filed a petition under section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for grant of divorce decree, alleging that the petitioner wife had breached the trust by having a relationship with another man .

After getting a job as a teacher in July 2022, the man alleged that his wife had completely neglected him. While the petitioner wife maintained that since the husband neglected her and her daughter and did not take care of them, she was left with no other option but to return to her parental home and she was residing there since 2019.

The matter was referred to mediation by the Supreme Court but did not result in an agreement. The parties also fairly admitted that the marriage had irretrievably broken down.

“In the factual scenario, we consider that the exercise of the power under Article 142 (1) of the Constitution is justified by the facts and circumstances of the case and also to do complete justice between the parties, particularly in the background. of this court having stated here that the marriage between the petitioner and the first respondent has completely failed and the parties had not cohabited since 2019 till date and there is no possibility of the parties cohabiting in the future. Therefore, the continuation of the legal relationship would be unjustified and would not serve the interests of the parties,” the court said.

The court considered that the continuation of the proceedings before the court of first instance could only be an ordeal that both parties would have to endure.

“We are of the considered opinion that the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent having irretrievably broken down, the exercise of power by this Court under Article 142 of the Constitution of India is required in the facts and circumstances obtained and also keeping in mind that the petitioner and the first Respondents are quite young, i.e. 32 and 38 years respectively, and have future ahead of them,” the court said.

The court also noted that a settlement agreement was reached in which the husband deposited a sum of Rs 7,00,000 in the name of the minor daughter. He ordered the man to pay a sum of Rs 13 lakh to the wife to meet the ends of justice.

Accordingly, the court dissolved the marriage by issuing a decree of divorce in exercise of the power conferred by Article 142(1) of the Constitution.