Not A Mere Breach Of Contract: Telangana High Court Refuses To Quash FIR In ₹73 Crore Garment Investment Fraud Accused Not Entitled To Copies Of 'Unrelied' Upon Documents At The Stage Of Framing Of Charges Under Section 91 CrPC: Supreme Court Elected Representatives Have No Privilege To Resort To Violence; Criminal Antecedents Are Material For Bail Adjudication: Supreme Court Mere Absence Of Transport Documents Does Not Create A Presumption Of Violation Of Chhattisgarh Agricultural Cattle Preservation Act, 2004: Supreme Court Section 396 IPC | Conviction For 'Dacoity With Murder' Requires Proof That Murder Was Committed In The Course Of Dacoity: Allahabad High Court 'Developers Cannot Delay Conveyance For Eternity And Milk Additional FSI Benefits': Bombay High Court Upholds Societies' Deemed Conveyance Pre-Approval Statutory Dues Stand Extinguished Upon Approval Of Resolution Plan; GST Authorities Cannot Initiate Fresh Proceedings: Calcutta High Court Unregistered Agreement To Sell With Delivery Of Possession Is Admissible In A Suit For Specific Performance: Delhi High Court Stigmatic Order Discharging Probationer Without Inquiry Is Void For Violation Of Natural Justice: Gujarat High Court Execution Proceedings | Court Cannot Impose Arbitrary Financial Conditions Without Reason In Stay Applications: Himachal Pradesh High Court Section 528 BNSS | High Court Cannot Exercise Inherent Powers To Circumvent Statutory Bar Against Second Revision: Delhi High Court Advocate Empanelment | Restriction On Multiple Applications Is A Procedural Choice Within Employer’s Domain: Delhi High Court Acquittal Appeal | Double Presumption Of Innocence In Favour Of Accused Cannot Be Disturbed Merely Because Another View Is Possible: Gujarat High Court SC/ST Act | Offence Under Section 3(1)(g) Not Attracted If Dispossession Or Interference Is Not Due To Victim's Caste: Himachal Pradesh High Court Judicial Officer Must Maintain Distance From Practicing Advocates To Avoid Impropriety: Gujarat High Court Upholds Dismissal Section 183 BNSS | Investigating Officer Cannot Independently Record Further Statement Of Victim After Recording Before Magistrate: Karnataka High Court Non-Production Of Case Property And Missing Link Evidence In Seizure Cases Vitiates Prosecution: Himachal Pradesh High Court Employees Compensation Act | Death Due To Cardiac Arrest During Employment Is An 'Accident' Arising Out Of Stress And Strain Of Duty: J&K High Court Transfer Of Proceedings | Courts Must Issue Fresh Notice To Parties Even If They Had Appeared Before The Transferor Court: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Ex-Parte Award Section 80P(4) IT Act Does Not Deny Deduction To Regional Rural Banks As They Retain The 'Deemed Co-operative Society' Status Under Section 22 RRB Act: Madras High Court Property Purchased In Name Of Child For Family Benefit Is Not A 'Benami Transaction' Under Section 2(9) Of The 1988 Act: Madhya Pradesh High Court Person Without Caveatable Interest Cannot Challenge Will Or Seek Revocation Of Probate: Madras High Court Divorce | Cruelty Must Be Assessed By Cumulative Effect Of Matrimonial Conduct Rather Than Isolated Incidents: Orissa High Court Merely Labeling Insurance Policy As Comprehensive Does Not Create Unlimited Liability: MP High Court Order VII Rule 11 CPC | Plaint Must Be Rejected If Limitation Bar Is Apparent From Face Of Pleadings: Patna High Court Limitation Act | 'Sufficient Cause' Cannot Be Used To Revive Stale Or Dead Claims By State: Orissa High Court Quashes Order Condoning 53-Year Delay Employee Cannot Remain Dormant Like Rip Van Winkle & Awaken At Convenience: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dismisses Stale Service Plea With ₹25K Cost Section 29 NDPS Act | Mere Allegation Of 'Cooperation' Without Specific Overt Acts Cannot Sustain Charge Of Conspiracy: Rajasthan High Court Forest Land Status Does Not Extinguish Private Civil Title: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Decree For Possession Once Admitted In Evidence, Document Cannot Be De-Marked On Grounds Of Insufficiency Of Stamp Duty: Telangana High Court Section 190 BNSS | Mere Presence In Unlawful Assembly With Active Intent Renders Member Vicariously Liable For Homicidal Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court Contributory Negligence Under Motor Vehicles Act Cannot Be Inferred Without Cogent Evidence: Telangana High Court Enhances Compensation Motor Vehicles Act | Section 164 Compensation Of Rs. 5 Lakhs Applicable Even To Pending Claims Arising Prior To 2019 Amendment: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consumer Protection Act | Builder Liable To Pay Interest For Delayed Possession Despite Force Majeure Plea If Agreement Executed Post-Outbreak: State Commission

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