2021 Supreme(SC) 579

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Hrishikesh Roy, JJ.
Sivasankaran - Appellant
Versus
Santhimeenal - Respondent
Civil Appeal Nos. 4984-4985 of 2021 [Arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 17505-17506 of 2019]
Decided On : 13-09-2021

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) A marriage is more than a seemingly simple union between two individuals – As a social institution, all marriages have legal, economic, cultural, and religious ramifications.
(2) There is no necessity of consent by both parties for exercise of powers under Article 142 of Constitution of India to dissolve marriage on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage.
(3) Repeated filing of cases itself has been held in judicial pronouncements to amount to mental cruelty.

Headnote:

(A) Family Law – Marital Discord – A marriage is more than a seemingly simple union between two individuals – As a social institution, all marriages have legal, economic, cultural, and religious ramifications – Norms of a marriage and varying degrees of legitimacy it may acquire are dictated by factors such as marriage and divorce laws, prevailing social norms, and religious dictates – Functionally, marriages are seen as a site for propagation of social and cultural capital as they help in identifying kinship ties, regulating sexual behaviour, and consolidating property and social prestige – Families are arranged on idea of a mutual expectation of support and amity which is meant to be experienced and acknowledged amongst its members – Once this amity breaks apart, results can be highly devastating and stigmatizing – Primary effects of such breakdown are felt especially by women, who may find it hard to guarantee same degree of social adjustment and support that they enjoyed while they were married. (Para 7)

(B) Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Section 13(1)(i-a) – Constitution of Indi – Article 142 – Divorce – Marital discord – A marriage marked by solemnity but marred by sordid episodes of rancour and restiveness – Case involves a divorce petition filed under Section 13(1)(i-a) of Act, and at no point of time have both parties been amenable to a divorce on mutual consent – There is no necessity of consent by both parties for exercise of powers under Article 142 of Constitution of India to dissolve marriage on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage – Living together is not a compulsory exercise – Marriage is a tie between two parties – If this tie is not working under any circumstances, there is no purpose in postponing inevitability of situation merely because of pendency of reference. (Paras 9, 11 and 14)

(C) Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Section 13(1)(i-a) – Constitution of Indi – Article 142 – Divorce – Irretrievable breakdown of marriage – Marriage which never took off from first day – Marriage was never consummated and parties have been living separately from date of marriage for almost 20 years – Appellant remarried after 6 years of the marriage – All mediation efforts have failed – Repeated filing of cases itself has been held in judicial pronouncements to amount to mental cruelty – Continuing acts of respondent would amount to cruelty even if same had not arisen as a cause prior to institution of petition – This is one case where both the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage and the ground of cruelty on account of subsequent facts would favour the grant of decree of divorce in favour of the appellant – End to this marriage would permit parties to go their own way in life after having spent two decades battling each other, and there can always be hope, even at this age, for a better life, if not together, separately – Decree of divorce dissolving marriage between parties be passed not only in exercise of powers under Article 142 of Constitution of India on account of irretrievable breakdown of marriage, but also on account of cruelty under Section 13(1)(i-a) of Act. (Paras 18 to 22)

Facts of the Case:

Appellant-husband and respondent-wife resolved to tie the marital knot by solemnising their marriage as per the Hindu rites and customs on 7.2.2002. It appears there was a crash landing at the take-off stage itself! The appellant claims that the respondent’s view was that she had been coerced into marrying the appellant without giving her consent. endeavour to find a solution through mediation or any acceptable solution between the parties did not succeed. High Court noticed some aspects of alleged cruelty and dissolved the marriage by passing a decree of divorce on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage. Thus, the review petition was allowed by the impugned order dated 25.2.2019, which has been assailed in the present appeal.

Findings of Court:

There are episodes of further harassment by the respondent even at the place of work of the appellant including insulting the appellant in front of students and professors, as is apparent from the judgment of the Trial Court. She is stated to have threatened the appellant of physical harm in front of his colleagues as per the testimony of PW.3 and complained to the appellant’s employer threatening to file a criminal complaint against him (PW.3). The first appellate Court somehow brushed aside these incidents as having not been fully established on a perception of wear and tear of marriage. The moot point is that the marriage has not taken off from its inception. There can hardly be any ‘wear and tear of marriage’ where parties have not been living together for a long period of time. The parties, undisputedly, never lived together even for a day.

Result : Appeals allowed.