IMPORTANT POINT
Divorce – Marriage can be dissolved on the ground of irretrievable breakdown – A dead marriage must be given a decent quietus.

1. Leave granted.

2. The instant appeal assails the correctness of an order dated 26.07.2019 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana (the “High Court”) in FAO-146-M-2005 (O&M) (the “Impugned Order”). Pertinently, vide the Impugned Order, the High Court dismissed the appeal; and accordingly upheld the correctness of an order dated 09.12.2004 passed by the Ld. Additional District Judge (Ad. Hoc), Faridabad (the “Family Court”) whereunder the Family Court dismissed a petition instituted by the Appellant herein under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking dissolution of marriage by way of a decree of divorce (the “Underlying Order”).

3. The Appellant and the Respondent before this Court were married on 14.10.1991 as per Hindu rites and rituals, at Faridabad, Haryana. Out of the wedlock two children were born on 25.08.1993 and 02.05.1996.

4. Despite being together for approximately 14 (fourteen) years, bitterness crept into the relationship between the parties. Whilst on one hand, it is alleged that the Respondent ill-treated the Appellant; and constantly acted against the Appellant at the behest of her parents. On the other hand, the Respondent Wife alleged cruelty and torture at the hands of the Appellant Husband.

5. Despite our best efforts, the parties were adamant on parting ways - citing an irretrievable breakdown of their marriage. Accordingly, it was submitted that the marriage between the parties be dissolved on the aforesaid ground. Reliance in this regard was placed on a decision of this Court in Shilpa Sailesh vs. Varun Sreenivasan, 2023 SCC Online SC 544 wherein it was observed that a marriage may be dissolved on the ground of an irretrievable breakdown in exercise of the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 142(1) of the Constitution of India. This Court in Shilpa Sailesh (Supra) delineated various factors to be considered by this Court whilst exercising such jurisdiction. The relevant paragraph is reproduced below:

“41. Having said so, we wish to clearly state that grant of divorce on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage by this Court is not a matter of right, but a discretion which is to be exercised with great care and caution, keeping in mind several factors ensuring that ‘complete justice’ is done to both parties. It is obvious that this Court should be fully convinced and satisfied that the marriage is totally unworkable, emotionally dead and beyond salvation and, therefore, dissolution of marriage is the right solution and the only way forward. That the marriage has irretrievably broken down is to be factually determined and firmly established. For this, several factors are to be considered such as the period of time the parties had cohabited after marriage; when the parties had last cohabited; the nature of allegations made by the parties against each other and their family members; the orders passed in the legal proceedings from time to time, cumulative impact on the personal relationship; whether, and how many attempts were made to settle the disputes by intervention of the court or through mediation, and when the last attempt was made, etc. The period of separation should be sufficiently long, and anything above six years or more will be a relevant factor. But these facts have to be evaluated keeping in view the economic and social status of the parties, including their educational qualifications, whether the parties have any children, their age, educational qualification, and whether the other spouse and children are dependent, in which event how and in what manner the party seeking divorce intends to take care and provide for the spouse or the children. Question of custody and welfare of minor children, provision for fair and adequate alimony for the wife, and economic rights of the children and other pending matters, if any, are relevant considerations. We would not like to codify the factors so as to curtail exercise of jurisdiction under Article 142(1) of the Const