Delay in Test Identification & Absence of Motive Fatal to Prosecution: Allahabad High Court Acquits Man for Murder Tokre Koli or Dhor Koli – Both Stand on Same Legal Footing: Bombay High Court Slams Scrutiny Committee for Disregarding Pre-Constitutional Records Consent Is No Defence When Victim Is Under 16: Delhi High Court Upholds Rape Conviction Granting Pre-Arrest Bail in Minor Rape Cases Would Send a Harmful Societal Signal: Delhi High Court Refuses Anticipatory Bail to Accused Citing POCSO’s Rigorous Standards Void Marriage No Shield Against Cruelty Charges: Karnataka High Court Affirms Section 498A Applies Even In Deceptive and Void Marital Relationships Consolidation Authorities Cannot Confer Ownership Or Alter Scheme Post Confirmation Without Due Process: Punjab & Haryana High Court Reaffirms Civil Court’s Jurisdiction Over Void Post-Scheme Orders Litigation Policy is Not Law, Can’t Enforce Guidelines Through Courts: Rajasthan High Court Refuses to Entertain Quo Warranto Against Additional Advocate General’s Appointment Police and Lawyers Are Two Limbs of Justice System: Rajasthan High Court Takes Suo Motu Cognizance in Police Misconduct Incident Sole Testimony, Forensic Gaps, and Withheld Witness: No Conviction Possible: Delhi High Court Affirms Acquittal in Murder Trial Remand Keeps the Dispute Alive – Not Arrears: Bombay High Court Holds SVLDRS Relief Must Be Computed Under Litigation Category Use of ‘Absconding’ in Employment Context Not Defamatory Per Se, But A Privileged Communication Under Exception 7 of Section 499 IPC: Allahabad High Court Daughter’s Right Extinguished When Partition Effected Prior to 2005 Amendment: Madras High Court Trial Courts Cannot Direct Filing of Challan After Conviction — Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes Directions Against DSP Veer Singh Rule 4 Creates Parity, Not a Parallel Pension Pipeline: Rajasthan High Court Denies Dual Pension to Ex-Chief Justice Serving as SHRC Chairperson Right to Be Heard Must Be Preserved Where Claim Has a Legal Basis: Orissa High Court Upholds Impleadment of Will Beneficiary in Partition Suit Long-Term Ad Hocism Is Exploitation, Not Employment: Orissa High Court Orders Regularization Of Junior Typist After 25 Years Of Service PIL Cannot Be a Tool for Personal Grievances: Supreme Court Upholds Municipal Body’s Power to Revise Property Tax After 16 Years Omission of Accused’s Name by Eyewitness in FIR is a Fatal Lacuna: Supreme Court Acquits Man Convicted of Murder Correction In Revenue Map Under Section 30 Isn’t A Tool To Shift Plot Location After 17 Years: Supreme Court Quashes High Court’s Remand Casteist Abuses Must Be In Public View: Supreme Court Quashes SC/ST Act Proceedings Where Alleged Insults Occurred Inside Complainant’s House Resignation Bars Pension, But Not Gratuity: Supreme Court Draws Sharp Line Between Voluntary Retirement and Resignation in DTC Employee Case Patta Without SDM’s Prior Approval Is Void Ab Initio And Cannot Be Cancelled – It Never Legally Existed: Allahabad High Court Natural Guardian Means Legal Guardian: Custody Cannot Be Denied to Father Without Strong Reason: Orissa High Court Slams Family Court for Technical Rejection Affidavit Is Not a Caste Certificate: Madhya Pradesh High Court Sets Aside Zila Panchayat Member's Election for Failing Eligibility Under OBC Quota Confession Recorded By DCP Is Legally Valid Under KCOCA – Bengaluru DCP Holds Rank Equivalent To SP: Karnataka High Court Difference of Opinion Cannot End in Death: Jharkhand High Court Commutes Death Sentence in Maoist Ambush Killing SP Pakur and Five Policemen Mere Presence Of Beneficiary During Execution Does Not Cast Suspicion On Will: Delhi High Court Litigants Have No Right to Choose the Bench: Bombay High Court Rules Rule 3A Is Mandatory, Sends Writ to Kolhapur Testimony Must Be of Sterling Quality: Himachal Pradesh High Court Acquits Grandfather in Rape Case, Citing Unnatural Conduct and Infirm Evidence Cheating and Forgery Taint Even Legal Funds: No Safe Haven in Law for Laundered Money: Bombay High Court Final Maintenance Is Not Bound by Interim Orders – Section 125 Determination Must Be Based on Real Evidence: Delhi High Court

Supreme Court Ends 25-Year Marriage, Cites Irretrievable Breakdown and Grants Divorce

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India has granted a divorce decree to a couple, Shri Rakesh Raman and Smt. Kavita, on the grounds of irretrievable breakdown of their marriage. The court held that the continuation of their marital relationship would only perpetuate cruelty and awarded a substantial amount as permanent alimony to the wife.

The case, Civil Appeal No. 2012 of 2013, originated from a divorce proceeding initiated by Shri Rakesh Raman under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, in the Court of Additional District Judge (North), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi. The trial court had decreed the divorce, but the decision was subsequently overturned by the Delhi High Court. Aggrieved by the High Court's ruling, Shri Rakesh Raman approached the Supreme Court, which granted special leave to appeal.

In the judgment delivered by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.B. Pardiwala, the court analyzed the facts and circumstances of the case. The court noted that the couple had been living separately for nearly 25 years, with no cohabitation during this period. Moreover, there were no children from the marriage. The court further highlighted the failed attempts at reconciliation and mediation, which had only exacerbated the bitterness between the parties.

Taking into account the entire matrimonial relationship, the court found that the continued marriage would amount to cruelty inflicted by each party on the other. While the Hindu Marriage Act does not explicitly recognize irretrievable breakdown as a ground for divorce, the court invoked the ground of cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Act to dissolve the marriage.

Addressing the issue of alimony, the court observed that the appellant, Shri Rakesh Raman, was an employee of the Life Insurance Corporation with a monthly salary exceeding Rs. 1,00,000. In light of this, the court ordered him to pay a substantial amount of Rs. 30,00,000 as permanent alimony to Smt. Kavita.

The court's judgment is significant as it recognizes the concept of irretrievable breakdown of a marriage, despite the absence of a specific provision in the Hindu Marriage Act. The decision aligns with previous rulings where the court dissolved marriages on similar grounds using its power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India.

This judgment reinforces the court's stance on addressing the realities of human relationships and the need to protect the interests of individuals caught in broken marriages. By granting the divorce and awarding alimony, the court has provided relief to the parties involved and acknowledged the need for justice in such circumstances.

The case sets a precedent for future divorce proceedings where the irretrievable breakdown of a marriage can be considered a ground for dissolution, even if not explicitly provided for in the statute. It highlights the court's approach to ensure fairness and equity in matrimonial cases, taking into account the emotional and psychological well-being of the parties involved.

With this ruling, the Supreme Court has reaffirmed its commitment to evolving legal principles and adapting to the changing dynamics of modern society, ultimately aiming to deliver justice and protect the fundamental rights of individuals in marital relationships.

Shri Rakesh Raman vs Smt. Kavita

Latest Legal News