Registrar Has No Power To Cancel Registered Sale Deeds: Madras High Court Reaffirms Civil Court’s Exclusive Jurisdiction MP High Court Refuses to Quash FIR Against Principal of Sacred Heart Convent High School in Forced Conversion Case Employees Of Registered Societies Cannot Claim Article 311 Protection: Delhi High Court Clarifies Limits Of Constitutional Safeguards In Private Employment Maintenance Cannot Be Doubled Without Cogent Reasons, Wife's Education And Earning Capacity Relevant Factors: Gujarat High Court A Foreign Award Must First Be "Recognised" Before It Becomes A Decree: Bombay High Court A Registered Will Does Not Become Genuine Merely Because It Is Registered: Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejects Suspicious Testament Compensation Under Railways Act Requires Proof of Bona Fide Passenger – Mere GRP Entry and Medical Records Cannot Establish ‘Untoward Incident’: Delhi High Court Tenancy Rights Cannot Be Bequeathed By Will: Himachal Pradesh High Court Declares Mutation Based On Tenant’s Will Void Preventive Detention Cannot Be Based On Mere Apprehension of Bail: Delhi High Court Quashes PITNDPS Detention Order Probate Court Alone Has Exclusive Jurisdiction To Decide Validity Of Will – Probate Petition Cannot Be Rejected Merely Because A Civil Suit Is Pending: Allahabad High Court PwD Candidates Cannot Be Denied Appointment After Selection; Authorities Must Accommodate Them In Suitable Posts: Supreme Court Directs SSC And CAG To Appoint Candidates With Disabilities When Registered Partition Deed Exists, Plea Of Prior Oral Partition Cannot Override It:  Madras High Court Dismisses Second Appeal Municipal Bodies Cannot Demand Character Verification Of Residents: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Surveillance Condition In Building Sanction State Cannot Exploit Contractual Workers For Perennial Work: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Pay Parity To PUNBUS Drivers And Conductors Police Inputs Cannot Create New Building Laws: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Security-Based Conditions Near Nabanna 'Raising A Child As Daughter Does Not Make Her An Adopted Child': Punjab & Haryana High Court Once Leave Under Section 80(2) CPC Is Granted, Prior Notice to Government Is Not Mandatory: Orissa High Court Restores Trial Court Decree State Cannot Use Article 226 To Evade Compliance With Court Orders: Gauhati High Court Dismisses Union’s Petition With Costs ED Officers Accused Of Assault By ₹23-Crore Scam Accused – FIR Survives But Probe Shifted To CBI: Jharkhand High Court High Courts Should Not Interfere In Academic Integrity Proceedings At Preliminary Stage: Kerala High Court Power Of Attorney Holder With Personal Knowledge Can Depose In Cheque Bounce Cases: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Acquittal Agreement Cannot Dissolve Hindu Marriage, But Can Prove Mutual Separation”: J&K & Ladakh High Court Denies Maintenance

Supreme Court Dissolves Marriage on Grounds of ‘Irretrievable Breakdown’, Long Separation and Non-Response to Summons”

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant judgment, the Supreme Court of India has dissolved a marriage citing the grounds of ‘irretrievable breakdown’. This decision in the case of Xxx VS Xxx   (2024 INSC 55) marks a pivotal moment in the interpretation of matrimonial laws in India.

The bench, comprising Justices B.R. Gavai and Prashant Kumar Mishra, emphasized the long separation of almost 13 years between the parties, during which there was no communication, as a key factor in their decision. “We have no hesitation in holding that the present is a case of irretrievable breakdown of marriage as there is no possibility of the couple staying together,” the bench observed (Para 15).

The case came to the Supreme Court after both the Family Court and the High Court dismissed the appellant’s plea for divorce on the grounds of cruelty and desertion. In an unusual turn, the Supreme Court chose to focus on the ‘irretrievable breakdown’ of the marriage, noting that the respondent-wife had consistently failed to appear in various judicial proceedings, which was seen as an indication of her lack of interest in continuing the marital relationship.

Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra, delivering the judgment, stated, “The respondent-wife is not even responding to the summons issued by the courts. It seems she is no longer interested in continuing the marital relations with the appellant” (Para 15). This non-appearance was a significant consideration in the Court’s decision to dissolve the marriage.

The Court exercised its power under Article 142(1) of the Constitution of India, a provision that allows it to pass any order necessary for doing ‘complete justice’ in any cause or matter pending before it. This remarkable use of Article 142 underscores the Supreme Court’s commitment to ensuring justice in complex matrimonial disputes.

The dissolution of the marriage between Prakashchandra Joshi and Kuntal Prakashchandra Joshi, solemnized on 5th January 2004, was thus granted, bringing an end to a long-standing matrimonial discord. This judgment is expected to have significant implications for future cases involving prolonged separation and non-cooperation from one of the spouses.

Date of Decision: 24 January 2024

Xxx VS Xxx                 

 

Latest Legal News