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

Last updated:Oct 28, 2024 3:35 PM IST

The husband had filed a petition under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for grant of decree of divorce alleging that the petitioner-wife had breached trust because he was in relationship with another man

The court was of the opinion that the continuation of the proceedings in court could only be an ordeal that both parties would have to undergo. (Getty)

The Supreme Court recently noted that it can deviate from both procedure and substantive law, as long as the decision is made based on considerations of fundamental, general and specific public policy.

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

The court pointed out that it has also been held that this court in exercise of the power under Article 142(1) of the Constitution has the discretionary power to dissolve the marriage on the ground of its irretrievable breakdown and this discretion must are exercised. to do ‘full justice’ to the parties, when this court is convinced that the established facts show that the marriage has completely failed and there is no possibility of the parties moving in together, and continuation of the formal legal relationship is not justified.

The case before the apex court arose out of a transfer petition filed by the woman seeking transfer of the proceedings pending under the Hindu Marriage Act in the court of the Chief Judge, 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 decree of divorce alleging that the petitioner-wife had breached trust because he was in relationship with another man.

After getting a teaching job in July 2022, the man alleged that his wife had completely neglected him. While the petitioner-wife argued that since the husband had neglected her and the daughter and failed to take care of them, she had no choice but to return to her parental home and had been living there since 2019.

The case was referred to mediation by the Supreme Court, but did not lead to a settlement. The parties also honestly admitted that the marriage had broken down irreparably.

“In the factual scenario, we are of the considered view that the exercise of power under Article 142(1) of the Constitution is justified in the facts and circumstances of the case and also to do full justice between the parties, especially in the background. of this Court, which has observed herein that the marriage between the petitioner and the first respondent has completely broken down and the parties have not cohabited from 2019 till date and there is no possibility of the parties cohabiting in the future. Continuing the legal relationship would therefore not be justified and would not serve the interests of the parties,” the court said.

The court was of the opinion that the continuation of the proceedings in court could only be an ordeal that both parties would have to undergo.

“We are of the considered view that since the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent has broken down irretrievably, exercise of power by this Court under Article 142 of the Constitution of India is required on the facts and circumstances obtained, and also taking into account the fact that the petitioner and the first respondents are quite young, i.e. 32 years and 38 years respectively, and have a future ahead of them,” the bench said.

The court also noted that a settlement agreement had been reached under which the husband had deposited an amount of Rs 7,00,000 in the name of the minor daughter. It directed the man to pay an amount of Rs 13 lakh to the woman to fulfill the ends of justice.

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