Section 9 A&C Act Relief Available Until Award Is Actually Enforced, Even After It Becomes Enforceable: Telangana High Court Matrimonial Litigations Must Not Degenerate Into Contests Of Mutual Humiliation By Weaponising Private Images: Delhi High Court Unarmed Witnesses’ Inaction Against Armed Assailants Justified By Instinct Of Self-Preservation; Testimony Cannot Be Discarded: Allahabad High Court Ocular Evidence Outweighs Motive: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Murder Conviction Based On Reliable Eyewitness Testimony Arrest Illegal If Written 'Grounds Of Arrest' Not Furnished To Accused; Communication Of Mere 'Reasons' Insufficient: Bombay High Court Absence Of Territorial Jurisdiction No Ground To Quash FIR At Threshold If Allegations Disclose Cognizable Offence: Calcutta High Court Proof Of Demand Is Sine Qua Non For PC Act Conviction; Voice Recordings Inadmissible Without Sec 65-B Certificate: Chhattisgarh HC Section 91 IEA | Disposition Of Immovable Property Cannot Be Proved By Oral Evidence If Written Document Not Produced: Delhi High Court NRC Legacy Data Extracts Inadmissible Without Section 65B Certificate; PAN Card & EPIC Not Proof Of Citizenship: Gauhati High Court Testimony Of Injured Witness Entitled To Great Weight; Minor Contradictions Due To Lapse Of Memory Cannot Discard Prosecution Case: Himachal Pradesh High Court Section 164 CrPC Statement Recorded Without Procedural Safeguards Or 'Cooling-Off' Period Not A Valid Confession: Jharkhand High Court Anticipatory Bail Cannot Be Denied Merely Because Investigation Is At A Nascent Stage If Custodial Interrogation Is Not Indispensable: Telangana High Court Actual Pay Drawn During Last 10 Months Must Be Basis For Pension Calculation, Regardless Of Notional Pay In Parent Bank: Punjab & Haryana High Court Kerala High Court Remands Teacher Seniority Dispute For Fresh Consideration To Verify If Senior Teacher Relinquished Promotion Claim Receipt Of DNA Report After Testimony Doesn't Automatically Confer Right To Recall Witness For Further Cross-Examination: Madhya Pradesh High Court Possession Of 'Bhang' Not An Offence Under NDPS Act, Specific Definition Excludes It: Jharkhand High Court Acquits Man Trial Court Cannot Reject Request For Handwriting Expert Merely Because Signatures Are On Photocopies: Punjab & Haryana 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