Forcing a Marriage to Continue Despite Unhappiness Undermines Its Purpose: Supreme Court

New Delhi (The Uttam Hindu): The Supreme Court recently observed that forcing a marriage to continue when it is a source of unhappiness and conflict defeats the very purpose of the institution. The court made this remark while dissolving a matrimonial alliance that had been in place since 2002 between a software engineer couple. "Marriage is meant to be a relationship founded on mutual trust, companionship, and shared experiences.When these fundamental elements are missing for an extended period, the marital bond becomes nothing more than a legal formality, devoid of any real substance.

This court has consistently held that prolonged separation, coupled with an inability to reconcile, is a crucial factor in deciding matrimonial disputes," stated a bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Prasanna B. Varale. The apex court upheld the Madras High Court’s judgment, which had granted a divorce decree to the respondent-husband, and rejected the appellant-wife’s arguments, deeming them without merit. The court also directed the husband to pay ₹50 lakh as permanent alimony to the wife and another ₹50 lakh to their daughter, who was born in 2003.

In its ruling, the Supreme Court emphasized that the cruelty, long separation, and irretrievable breakdown of the marriage in this case provided adequate grounds for dissolution. The bench noted that the prolonged separation and visible animosity between the parties made the revival of the marriage impossible. Initially, the trial court had dismissed the husband’s divorce petition, and the first appellate court had upheld this decision, citing the wife’s expressed desire for reconciliation. However, the husband approached the High Court, claiming that the wife had subjected him to mental and physical cruelty, including filing false cases against him and deserting the matrimonial home. He argued that these actions caused him significant mental distress and contributed to the marriage’s breakdown.

The High Court found merit in the husband's claims, citing cruelty and desertion under Sections 13(1)(ia) and (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. It noted that the wife’s false criminal complaints and her disregard for reconciliation efforts caused substantial mental anguish to the husband. The extended separation without valid reason further amounted to desertion. As a result, the High Court overturned the trial and appellate courts' rulings and granted the husband a divorce decree.

The wife challenged the High Court’s ruling in the Supreme Court, arguing that the High Court had exceeded its jurisdiction under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, by introducing the concept of irretrievable breakdown of marriage, which was not raised in previous proceedings. She also claimed that the High Court’s findings contradicted established principles and evidence, and she maintained that her intention was not to seek financial support, but to preserve her family’s dignity and reputation. The husband, on the other hand, reiterated that the marriage had irretrievably broken down and that continuing the legal battle was pointless. He argued that the wife’s frivolous legal actions had caused him immense mental distress and made reconciliation impossible.

After reviewing the evidence and arguments, the Supreme Court concluded that the grounds of cruelty, prolonged separation, and irretrievable breakdown of the marriage were clearly established. The court referred to precedents such as NG Dastane vs S Dastane (1975) and V Bhagat vs D Bhagat (1994), which underscore that continuous acts of cruelty make cohabitation unreasonable. Citing K Srinivas Rao vs DA Deepa (2013), the bench highlighted that prolonged separation creates a presumption of irretrievable breakdown of marriage.

Although irretrievable breakdown of marriage is not a statutory ground for divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act, the court invoked its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to grant relief, emphasizing that continuing the marriage would only prolong animosity and litigation, to the detriment of both parties. The court also noted that the appellant’s actions, including filing false criminal complaints, amounted to mental cruelty, causing significant emotional distress to the husband and damaging the relationship beyond repair. Reiterating that the marriage had lost its essence, the bench concluded that dissolving the marriage was in the best interest of both parties, as its continuation served no meaningful purpose.