Custodial Death | Pendency Of Criminal Trial No Bar For Awarding Compensation Under Public Law Remedy: Gauhati High Court Suit For Possession Under Section 6 Specific Relief Act Barred If Filed Beyond Six Months Of Dispossession: Madras High Court Subsequent Purchaser Is Representative Of Judgment Debtor, Separate Suit Challenging Execution Sale Barred Under Section 47 CPC: Kerala High Court Statutory Bail Restrictions Melt Down When Pre-Trial Detention Is Prolonged & Trial Is Unlikely To Conclude Soon: Delhi High Court Failure To Apprise Accused Of Right Under Section 50 NDPS Act Vitiates Search & Recovery: J&K & Ladakh High Court Section 12(5) Arbitration Act Inapplicable To Proceedings Commenced Before 2015 Amendment; Executing Court Can't Apply Neutrality Norms Retrospectively: Punjab & Haryana High Court Banks Can Share Sale Proceeds Of Secured Assets Outside Liquidation Estate With Homebuyers Under Compromise Agreement: Kerala High Court Private Rights Must Yield To Public Interest: Andhra Pradesh High Court Directs Removal Of Encroachments On Public Road Review Jurisdiction Cannot Be Invoked To Re-Agitate Factual Disputes Or Seek Re-Hearing On Merits: Allahabad High Court Recovery Under Section 27 Evidence Act Vitiated If Police Already Present At Spot Before Arrival Of Panch Witnesses: Bombay High Court Mere Non-Compliance Or Delay In Procedure Under Section 52A NDPS Act Is An Irregularity, Not An Illegality Entitling Accused To Bail: Calcutta High Court Recovery Of Weapon Used In Commission Of Offence Not A Sine Qua Non For Conviction If Ocular Evidence Is Corroborated: Allahabad High Court Seized Vehicles Shouldn't Be Kept Idle To Rot In Police Stations, Utility Vanishes Due To Stagnation: Karnataka High Court Or 39 CPC | Trial Court Erred In Dismissing Injunction Application Despite Respondent's 'No Objection' To Restraining Share Transfer: Gauhati High Court Issuing NBW Merely For Absence Of Accused Already On Bail Is Improper; Liberty Cannot Be Dealt With Lightly: Orissa High Court 138 NI | Expert Examination Of Disputed Documents Essential For Just Adjudication If Complainant Denies Handwriting & Signatures: Rajasthan High Court Order 41 Rule 27 CPC Cannot Be Invoked To Fill Lacunae In Evidence If Party Voluntarily Closed Evidence In Trial Court: 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