CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints Minimum Wages Cannot Be Ignored While Determining Just Compensation: Andhra Pradesh High Court Re-Fixes Income of Deceased Mason, Enhances Interest to 7.5% 34 IPC | Common Intention Is Inferred From Manner Of Attack, Weapons Carried And Concerted Conduct: Allahabad High Court Last Date of Section 4 Publication Is Crucial—Error in Date Cannot Depress Market Value: Bombay High Court Enhances Compensation in Beed Land Acquisition Appeals Order 26 Rule 10-A CPC | Rarest of Rare: When a Mother Denies Her Own Child: Rajasthan High Court Orders DNA Test to Decide Maternity Acquittal Is Not a Passport Back to Uniform: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Dismissal of Constable in NDPS Case Despite Trial Court Verdict Limitation Under Section 468 Cr.P.C. Cannot Be Ignored — But Section 473 Keeps the Door Open in the Interest of Justice: P&H HC Non-Stamping Renders A Document Inadmissible, Not Void – Defect Is Curable Once Duty Is Paid: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Specific Performance MP High Court Upholds Ladli Behna Yojana Criteria; Rules Registration Deadlines and Age Limits Fall Under Executive Domain Criminal Courts Are Not Recovery Agents: Orissa High Court Grants Bail in ₹3.5 Crore Land Fraud Cases Citing Article 21 and Terminal Illness Employee Cannot Switch Cadre At His Sweet Will After Accepting Promotion: J&K High Court Rejects Claim For Retrospective Assistant Registrar Appointment Anticipatory Bail Cannot Expire With Charge-Sheet: Supreme Court Reiterates Liberty Is Not Bound by Procedural Milestones Order II Rule 2 Cannot Eclipse Amendment Power Under Order VI Rule 17: MP High Court Refuses to Stall Will-Based Title Suit Grounds of Arrest Must Be Personal, Not Formal – But Detailed Allegations Suffice: Kerala High Court Upholds Arrest in Sabarimala Gold Misappropriation Case Grounds of Arrest Are Not a Ritual – They Are a Constitutional Mandate Under Article 22(1): Allahabad High Court Sets Aside Arrest for Non-Supply of Written Grounds Sect. 25 NDPS | Mere Ownership Cannot Fasten NDPS Liability – ‘Knowingly Permits’ Must Be Proved Beyond Reasonable Doubt: MP High Court Section 308 CrPC | Revocation of Pardon Is Not Automatic on Prosecutor’s Certificate: Karnataka High Court Joint Family and Ancestral Property Are Alien to Mohammedan Law: Gujarat High Court Sets Aside Injunction Right to Health Cannot Wait for Endless Consultations: Supreme Court Pulls Up FSSAI Over Delay in Front-of-Pack Warning Labels If A Son Dies Intestate Leaving Wife And Children, The Mother Has No Share: Karnataka High Court

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