Bail | Right to Speedy Trial is a Fundamental Right Under Article 21: PH High Court    |     Postal Department’s Power to Enhance Penalties Time-Barred, Rules Allahabad High Court    |     Tenants Cannot Cross-Examine Landlords Unless Relationship is Disputed: Madras High Court    |     NDPS | Conscious Possession Extends to Vehicle Drivers: Telangana High Court Upholds 10-Year Sentence in Ganja Trafficking Case    |     Aid Reduction Of Without Due Process Unlawful: Rajasthan High Court Restores Full Grants for Educational Institutions    |     Assessment of Notional Income in Absence of Proof Cannot Be 'Mathematically Precise,' Says Patna High Court    |     NCLT's Resolution Plan Overrides State Tax Claims: Andhra Pradesh High Court Quashes Demands Against Patanjali Foods    |     An Agreement is Not Voidable if the Party Could Discover the Truth with Ordinary Diligence: Calcutta High Court Quashes Termination of LPG Distributorship License    |     Independent Witnesses Contradict Prosecution's Story: Chhattisgarh High Court Acquit Accused in Arson Case    |     Merely Being a Joint Account Holder Does Not Attract Liability Under Section 138 of NI Act:  Gujarat High Court    |     Higher Court Cannot Reappreciate Evidence Unless Perversity is Found: Himachal Pradesh High Court Refused to Enhance Maintenance    |     Perpetual Lease Allows Division of Property: Delhi High Court Affirms Partition and Validity of Purdah Wall    |     "Party Autonomy is the Backbone of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Upholds Sole Arbitrator Appointment Despite Party’s Attempts to Frustrate Arbitration Proceedings    |     Videography in Temple Premises Limited to Religious Functions: Kerala High Court Orders to Restrict Non-Religious Activities on Temple Premises    |     Past Service Must Be Counted for Pension Benefits: Jharkhand High Court Affirms Pension Rights for Daily Wage Employees    |     'Beyond Reasonable Doubt’ Does Not Mean Beyond All Doubt: Madras High Court Upholds Life Imprisonment for Man Convicted of Murdering Mother-in-Law    |    

Continued Bitterness and Dead Emotions Justify Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage: Supreme Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India has dissolved a marriage citing irretrievable breakdown and prolonged separation of over 22 years. The bench, comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Satish Chandra Sharma, exercised its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to grant the divorce, setting aside the High Court’s earlier decision. The judgment highlights the court’s commitment to ensuring complete justice in cases of failed marriages, even when one spouse opposes the divorce.

The appellant, Dr. Vikas Kanaujia, and the respondent, Dr. Sarita, were married on February 20, 2002, but lived together for only 43 days. The respondent moved out of the marital home within a month, and despite repeated attempts at reconciliation, the couple remained separated. The appellant filed for divorce on grounds of cruelty, while the respondent opposed it, citing willingness to cohabit.

The Family Court granted the divorce In 2006, but the High Court reversed this decision in 2019, leading to the current appeal. The case also involved multiple legal battles, including allegations of dowry demands, false criminal charges, and mutual accusations of cruelty.

The Supreme Court emphasized the irretrievable breakdown of the marriage, noting the couple’s separation for more than two decades and their inability to reconcile despite numerous attempts. “The marriage has failed completely, and there is no possibility of the parties living together,” the court observed. The judgment underlined the necessity of granting a divorce to prevent further injustice and emotional distress.

Referring to the Constitution Bench ruling in Shilpa Shailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan, the court reiterated its discretionary power under Article 142 to dissolve marriages on the grounds of irretrievable breakdown, even if one party opposes. Justice Vikram Nath stated, “This Court has the discretion to dissolve the marriage on the ground of its irretrievable breakdown to do complete justice to the parties.”

The court acknowledged the prolonged legal battles and allegations of cruelty from both sides. The respondent had filed criminal charges against the appellant and his family, leading to their arrest, although they were later acquitted. The appellant claimed that these actions constituted mental cruelty. The court found that the continuous disputes and legal harassment indicated a failed marriage beyond repair.

Justice Vikram Nath remarked, “The continued bitterness, dead emotions, and long separation can be construed as a case of irretrievable breakdown of marriage. The relation has taken a sour taste, and the continuation of the formal legal relationship is unjustified.”

The Supreme Court’s decision to dissolve the marriage using its Article 142 powers underscores its role in ensuring justice in cases of failed marriages. This landmark judgment is expected to influence future cases, reinforcing the court’s commitment to addressing the complexities of matrimonial disputes and providing relief to parties in long-standing separations.

Date of Decision: July 10, 2024

Vikas Kanaujia v. Sarita

Similar News