Police Have No Power To Probe Or File Chargesheet Under PCPNDT Act: Supreme Court Rules Cognizance Bar Absolute 'Cannot Claim Pension Scheme Post-Retirement After Accepting CPF Benefits': Supreme Court Rules Regularisation Doesn't Relate Back To Initial Appointment 'Offence Within Four Corners Of Room Not In Public View': Supreme Court Quashes SCST Act Charges Against School Manager Give A Dog A Bad Name And Hang Him: Supreme Court Quashes UP Gangsters Act Cases; Rules Punishing Mere Status Violates Article 20(1) Child Of Tender Age Easy Prey To Tutoring: Supreme Court Quashes Double Murder Conviction Based On Solitary Child Witness 'State Cannot Supplant PSC's Role By Conducting Exhaustive Eligibility Enquiry': Supreme Court Limits Executive Power In Post-Selection Document Verification Revenue Entry Neither Creates Nor Extinguishes Title: Supreme Court Holds Limitation Against Co-Owner Cannot Run Without Open And Unequivocal Ouster 125 CrPC | Obligation To Maintain Children Cannot Be Divided By Arithmetic Alone': Supreme Court Rules Mother's Income No Ground To Halve Father's Liability 'Scramble For Possession': Supreme Court Directs Appointment Of Advocate Receiver Amid Clash Between Consent Decree Execution & Gujarat Tenancy Act Claims 'Enmity Is A Double-Edged Weapon': Allahabad High Court Acquits Murder Convicts After Medical Evidence Flaws Expose 'Eye-Witness' Lies Andhra Pradesh High Court Quashes Remand Extension Granted Without Notice To Accused, Grants Default Bail 167(2) CRPC No Violation Of Natural Justice If Borrower Fails To Produce Records Or Seek Personal Hearing: Calcutta High Court Upholds Bank's 'Fraud' Account Classification Cannot Exploit Entire Land's FAR For New Tower Once OC Is Issued Without Flat Owners' Consent: Karnataka High Court Mandates TDR Purchase Brethren Assembly Hall Is A 'Church' Under Foreign Liquor Rules, Bar Hotel Cannot Function Within Prohibited Distance: Kerala High Court Fence-Sitters Cannot Claim Arrears After Inordinate Delay, But Entitled To Notional Fixation For Pension: Madhya Pradesh High Court Strikes At The Foundation Of Institutional Integrity: Punjab And Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail In Medical PG Admission Fraud Case Foreign Law Degree Taken Directly After School Cannot Be Treated As 'First Degree' For Admission To 3-Year LL.B. In India: Bombay High Court Supreme Court Relaxes 3-Year Bar Practice Rule For Civil Judge Entry, Introduces 1-Year Practice & Clerkship Model

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