Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(SC) 421

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SUDHANSHU DHULIA, J. B. PARDIWALA, JJ.
Shri Rakesh Raman - Appellant
Versus
Smt. Kavita - Respondent
Civil Appeal No.2012 Of 2013
Decided On : 26-04-2023

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Arvind Kumar Gupta, AOR Mr. C.Parkash, Adv. Mr. Shrey Tanwar, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. S. R. Setia, AOR

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Repeatedly filing of criminal cases by one party against other in a matrimonial matter would amount to cruelty.
(2) A marriage which has broken down irretrievably, spells cruelty to both parties – It is a ground for dissolution of marriage.

Headnote:
(A) Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Section 13(1) (ia) & (ib) – Divorce – Cruelty and desertion by wife – Husband and wife been living separately since last 25 years – There is no child out of wedlock – There are bitter allegations of cruelty and desertion from both sides and multiple litigations between the two in last more than 25 years – This embittered relationship between appellant and respondent which has not witnessed any moment of peace for last 25 years is a marital relationship only on paper – Relationship has broken down irretrievably long back – Repeatedly filing of criminal cases by one party against other in a matrimonial matter would amount to cruelty – There is absolutely no scope of reconciliation between the parties – A marriage which has broken down irretrievably, spells cruelty to both parties, as in such a relationship each party is treating other with cruelty – It is a ground for dissolution of marriage under Section 13 (1) (ia) of Act – Marriage dissolved by a decree of divorce – Decree of divorce shall be made effective only from date of deposit of permanent alimony of Rs.30,00,000/-. (Paras 10, 11, 12, 16, 18, 19 and 20)
(B) Cruelty – Judicial Approach – What has to be examined is entire matrimonial relationship, as cruelty may not be in a violent act or acts but in a given case has to be gathered from injurious reproaches, complaints, accusations, taunts, etc. – Matrimonial cases before Courts pose a different challenge, quite unlike any other, as Court is dealing with human relationships with its bundle of emotions, with all its faults and frailties – It is not possible in every case to pin point to an act of “cruelty” or blameworthy conduct of spouse – Nature of relationship, general behaviour of parties towards each other, or long separation between two are relevant factors which Court must take into consideration. (Para 16)
Facts of the case:
Present appeal arises out of a divorce proceeding initiated by the appellant under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, in Court of Additional District Judge (North), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi. His suit was decreed and the marriage was dissolved by the Order of the Additional District Judge (North) dated 02.05.2009. The respondent/wife, then, filed appeal before the Delhi High Court which has set aside the order of Trial Court and dismissed petition of husband. Aggrieved by said Order, appellant/husband has filed a Special Leave Petition before this Court, in which leave was granted on 26.02.2013.
Findings of Court:
Amount of Rs.30,00,000/- shall be deposited in name of the respondent, within a period of four weeks from today with the Registry of this Court. The decree of divorce shall be made effective only from the date of such a deposit. On the event of such deposit, the Registry after verifying the credentials of the respondent/wife shall disburse the amount to the respondent/wife without further reference to this Court.
Result : Appeal allowed.

Judgement Key Points

Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:

Repeated filing of criminal cases by one party against the other in a matrimonial context can be considered cruelty, especially when such conduct indicates a pattern of harassment or malicious intent (!) (!) .
A marriage that has broken down irretrievably, with no meaningful contact or cohabitation for a long period, constitutes cruelty to both parties and is a valid ground for dissolution of marriage (!) (!) (!) .
The entire matrimonial relationship must be considered when assessing cruelty, including injurious reproaches, complaints, accusations, taunts, and the overall behavior of the parties, rather than focusing solely on violent acts (!) (!) .
Mental cruelty can arise from long-term separation, emotional distress, and persistent hostility, even in the absence of physical violence. Unilateral decisions, such as refusing to have intercourse or not having children, may also amount to cruelty (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
In cases where the marriage has been effectively broken down for a prolonged period (such as 25 years of separation), and there is no possibility or desire for reconciliation, the relationship may be deemed beyond repair, and its continuation may cause cruelty to both parties (!) (!) .
When a marriage has broken down irretrievably and the parties have been living separately with no prospects of reconciliation, the court may grant a decree of divorce, recognizing the relationship as having ceased to be a viable marital bond (!) (!) .
In divorce proceedings where the relationship has irretrievably broken down, the court may also consider awarding permanent alimony, especially if the respondent is in a position to receive such support. The amount and timing of deposit are directed by the court (!) (!) .
The assessment of cruelty involves a holistic review of the relationship, considering the impact of conduct on the mental and physical well-being of the spouses, rather than isolating specific acts (!) (!) .
The court recognizes that in long-separated marriages with no cohabitation and no children, the continuation of the marriage may serve only to perpetuate mutual cruelty, and dissolution is justified (!) .
The court emphasizes that cruelty can be unintentional and that the effect of conduct on the other spouse’s mental state is a critical factor in determining cruelty, rather than the intent behind the conduct (!) (!) .

These points collectively reflect the legal approach to assessing irretrievable breakdown and cruelty in matrimonial disputes, leading to the conclusion that dissolution of marriage is appropriate under such circumstances.

JUDGMENT :

(SUDHANSHU DHULIA, J.)

1. This appeal arises out of a divorce proceeding initiated by the appellant under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”), in the Court of Additional District Judge (North), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi. His suit was decreed and the marriage was dissolved by the Order of the Additional District Judge (North) dated 02.05.2009. The respondent/wife, then, filed an appeal before the Delhi High Court which has set aside the order of the Trial Court and dismissed the petition of the husband. Aggrieved by the said Order, the appellant/husband has filed a Special Leave Petition before this Court, in which leave was granted on 26.02.2013.

2. The appellant and the respondent were married under Hindu rituals and customs in Delhi, on 16.04.1994. Regrettably, it did not take long for the marital discord to set in their marital life. The appellant’s case is that his wife was not happy in their small dwelling, and used offensive, even abusive language against him. It has also been alleged that in September, 1994, she got her pregnancy terminated, without any prior intimation to her husband (this allegation was denied by the wife and could never be proved against her). It was in September 1994, again when she left her matrimonial home, but due to the efforts made by the well-wishers and relatives, they started living together from March 1995 onwards. This again did not last long, as on 16.02.1998 she left her matrimonial house, and lodged a complaint with the local police on 16/17.02.1998. In March 1998, she agreed to join her husband, on the condition that the appellant would take another accommodation and consequently in April, 1998 another house was taken on rent, and the two started living together in the new house. But then, on 24.08.1998, the appellant alleges that he was beaten by his wife and her brother. On 29.11.1998, he was kept out of his own house for the entire night. On 17.12.1998 she left her matrimonial house and lodged an FIR against the appellant and his brother, under Section 498A/406 of the Indian Penal Code, at Anand Parbat Police Station, New Delhi. The appellant and his brother were arrested the same day, while they were attending a marriage ceremony, and this was done in the presence of 15 to 20 of his friends. Later the two were released on bail, though the wife persisted with the matter and even moved an application for cancellation of their bail. The wife then filed a complaint under Sections 323 and 324 read with Section 34 IPC against the appellant/husband and his family members, however, they were subsequently discharged from the case. The respondent also initiated proceedings against appellant under Section 107 read with Section 150 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. She then filed a petition, under Section 18 of Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956, for her maintenance.

3. Left by his wife and burdened with multiple litigations slapped on him, the appellant took the decision to end the matrimonial relations. He thus moved his petition for dissolution of marriage under Section 13(1) (ia) & (ib) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, before the Additional District Judge, North Delhi on 20.09.2002, inter alia, on the facts, as narrated in the preceding paragraph.

4. The respondent denies that she ever ‘deserted’ her husband or inflicted any cruelty on him. Her counsel would submit that she only took recourse to legal avenues available to her under the law. She alleges that her ornaments which were her ‘stridhan’, were taken away and were never returned, and how she was forced to file a case against her husband under Sections 498A & 406 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). It was also her case that she had made every possible effort for reconciliation, but due to the non-cooperation of the appellant, all efforts towards mediation and settlement resulted in failure. She has denied that she had terminated her pregnancy.

5. The Family Court on 15.10.2003 f