Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Court | Supreme Court of India |
| Case Number | C.A. No.-005167-005167 – 2012 |
| Diary Number | 20804/2011 |
| Judge Name | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL |
| Bench |
|
| Precedent Value | Binding authority |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms trial court decree; sets aside High Court order |
| Type of Law | Family law / Matrimonial law / Constitutional law |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi | The Court held that where parties have lived separately for a long period (24 years here) with no reconciliation, the marriage has irretrievably broken down and its continued legal existence serves no purpose. In exercise of its power to do “complete justice” under Article 142(1), the Supreme Court may dissolve a Hindu marriage on that ground even if fault-based statutory grounds are absent or not fully proved. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | Marriage in 2000; wife left matrimonial home in 2001 alleging ill-treatment and refusal to quit her job; husband filed desertion suit in 2003; trial court granted divorce in 2010; High Court set it aside in 2011 for lack of permanent intent to desert; appeal filed before Supreme Court |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All courts in India (subordinate courts, High Courts, Supreme Court) |
| Persuasive For | High Courts considering irretrievable breakdown or Article 142 divorce applications |
| Overrules | Reading down of Savitri Pandey’s limitation on Article 142 divorce (as read down by Shilpa Sailesh) |
| Distinguishes | Savitri Pandey v. Prem Chandra Pandey (2002) 2 SCC 73 |
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Confirms that long separation (24 years) without reconciliation equates to irretrievable breakdown and amounts to cruelty.
- Holds that Article 142(1) power to do “complete justice” is not constrained by fault-based divorce requirements under Section 13.
- Reads down Savitri Pandey’s restriction on Article 142 divorce, aligning with Shilpa Sailesh.
- Reinforces that continued legal bond without cohabitation harms parties more than divorce.
- Permits Supreme Court to dissolve Hindu marriages on irretrievable breakdown even if statutory grounds (cruelty, desertion) are not fully established.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- Parties separated since November 2001; no children; litigation pending 22 years; mediation failed.
- Reliance on Rakesh Raman: 25 years’ separation shows marriage “only on paper” and cruelty under Section 13(1)(i-a).
- Naveen Kohli and Samar Ghosh: long, continuous separation means bond beyond repair; forcing cohabitation is harmful.
- Fault theory under Section 13 is procedural; Article 142’s “complete justice” permits dissolution of dead marriages.
- Shilpa Sailesh: Court can dissolve marriage under Article 142 without apportioning blame when irretrievable breakdown is indubitable.
- Pradeep Bhardwaj and Kumari Rekha: endorse Article 142 as independent ground for divorce in irretrievable breakdown cases.
- Conclusion: Marriage irretrievably broken, no rapprochement possible; exercise Article 142 to dissolve.
Arguments by the Parties
Appellant-Husband (Petitioner)
- Parties have lived separately since 2001 with no interaction despite working in same office branch.
- Two letters (Nov 12, 2002; Dec 2, 2002) inviting wife back went unanswered, proving no intent to resume cohabitation.
- Ingredients of desertion (separation + intent to end cohabitation) were satisfied; trial court rightly granted decree.
Respondent-Wife (Respondent)
- Left matrimonial home due to ill-treatment and humiliation by husband and his family over her job.
- Letters requesting her return were a façade; no genuine effort to reconcile.
- Husband’s haste to file divorce suit in 2003 shows intent to end marriage, not restore it.
- Continues to affirm marriage and willing to resume life if mistreatment ceases.
Factual Background
The parties married on 4 August 2000. The wife left the matrimonial home in late 2001, alleging continued ill-treatment and pressure to give up her job. The husband filed a desertion divorce suit in 2003; the trial court dissolved the marriage in March 2010. The High Court reversed in April 2011 for lack of permanent intent to desert. This appeal challenges that reversal.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 13(1)(i-a) & (i-b), Hindu Marriage Act, 1955: cruelty and desertion grounds require proof beyond reasonable doubt.
- Article 142(1), Constitution of India: empowers Supreme Court to “do complete justice” unburdened by procedural limitations of Section 13.
- Doctrine of fault and blame: procedural rule of Evidence Act, not a substantive bar on Article 142 power.
- “Reading down” Savitri Pandey to allow broader use of Article 142 for irretrievable breakdown.
Procedural Innovations
- Referral to court-annexed mediation at admission stage (Order dated 26 March 2012; report 10 April 2012).
- Use of Article 142(1) as an independent ground for divorce beyond statutory fault-based provisions.
Alert Indicators
- 🚨 Breaking Precedent – Expands Article 142 divorce power beyond traditional fault grounds.
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Applies Rakesh Raman, Naveen Kohli, Samar Ghosh, Shilpa Sailesh.
- 🔄 Conflicting Decisions – Reads down Savitri Pandey limitations.