Victim Has Locus To Request Court To Summon Witnesses Under Section 311 CrPC In State Prosecution: Allahabad High Court Order 2 Rule 2 CPC Cannot Be Ground to Reject a Plaint: Supreme Court Draws Crucial Distinction Between Bar to Sue and Bar by Law No Right to Lawyer Before Advisory Board in Preventive Detention — Unless Government Appears Through Legal Practitioner: Supreme Court Wife's Dowry Statement Cannot Be Used to Prosecute Her for 'Giving' Dowry: Supreme Court Upholds Section 7(3) Shield Husband's Loan Repayments Cannot Reduce Wife's Maintenance: Supreme Court Raises Amount to ₹25,000 From ₹15,000 Prisoners Don't Surrender Their Rights at the Prison Gate: Supreme Court Issues Binding SOP to End Delays in Legal Aid Appeals A Judgment Must Be a Self-Contained Document Even When Defendant Never Appears: Supreme Court on Ex Parte Decrees Court Cannot Dismiss Ex Parte Suit on Unpleaded, Unframed Issue: Supreme Court Sets Aside Specific Performance Decree Denied on Title Erroneous High Court Observations Cannot Be Used to Stake Property Claims: Supreme Court Steps In to Prevent Misuse of Judicial Observations No Criminal Proceedings Would Have Been Initiated Had Financial Settlement Succeeded: Supreme Court Grants Anticipatory Bail In Rape Case Directors Cannot Escape Pollution Law Prosecution by Claiming Ignorance: Allahabad High Court Refuses to Quash Summons Against Company Directors Order 7 Rule 11 CPC | Court Cannot Peek Into Defence While Rejecting Plaint: Delhi High Court Death 3½ Months After Accident Doesn't Break Causal Link If Doctors Testify Injuries Could Cause Death: Andhra Pradesh High Court LLB Intern Posed as Supreme Court Advocate, Used Fake Bar Council Card and Police Station Seals to Defraud Victims of Rs. 80 Lakhs: Gujarat High Court Rejects Anticipatory Bail Husband Who Travels to Wife's City on Leave, Cohabits With Her, Then Claims She 'Never Lived With Him' Cannot Prove Cruelty: Jharkhand High Court Liquor Licence Is a State Privilege, Not a Citizen's Right — No Vested Right of Renewal Survives a Change in Rules: Karnataka High Court Sets Aside Stay on E-Auction Policy Court Holiday Cannot Save Prosecution From Default Bail: MP High Court No Search At Your Premises, No Incriminating Document, No Case: Rajasthan HC Quashes Rs. 18 Crore Tax Assessment Under Section 153C Limitation Act | Litigant Cannot Be Punished For Court's Own Docket Load: J&K High Court

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

Latest Legal News