IMPORTANT POINT
Divorce – A dead marriage must be given a decent quietus when there is no salvation possible and relationship is practically dead and emotionally irretrievable.

JUDGMENT :

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The appellant is the husband and the respondent is the wife, who have spent a fair share of their life fighting in courts. Allegations and counter-allegations galore, are raised despite the fact that they have had a matrimonial life for just about four months. One of the appeals is filed against the common order in the two Criminal Revision Petitions filed before the High Court against the order granting maintenance of Rs. 10,000/- to the wife. The husband challenged the grant while the wife sought enhancement, to double the amount in the revisions filed. After enhancement in the revision filed by the wife, the maintenance awarded stood at Rs. 15,000/- per month. The other appeal is against the order of remand made by the High Court, from an order rejecting the prayer of the husband for a divorce on the ground of desertion and cruelty.

3. The High Court in the appeal from the order rejecting divorce, framed two issues for consideration. First, whether the trial court was in error in treating the divorce petition as one filed on the ground only of desertion and not on the ground of cruelty and then, whether the trial court erred in finding the marriage between the appellant and the respondent as one performed under Christian customs and rites; thus, making inapplicable the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, under which the Divorce Petition was filed. The High Court found that the trial court seriously erred in considering only the case of desertion put forth by the husband and rejecting the claim for divorce; while glossing over the ground of cruelty. It was held that mere failure to prove desertion cannot be taken as a failure to prove the ground of cruelty. On the question of the marriage having been performed as per Christian rites, it was found that the trial court egregiously misdirected itself in having considered an averment in the bail application; that the husband wanted to be released on bail prior to Christmas, while ignoring the oral evidence proffered by the husband and the caste certificate produced, as also the document indicating the auspicious time for the marriage as prepared by a Purohit, which documents clearly proved the fact that the husband was a Hindu. That the wife is a Hindu is not disputed at all. The High Court hence ordered a remand setting aside the Judgment and Decree rejecting the HMOP providing a further opportunity to the parties to adduce evidence on the two points on which the trial court order was set aside.

4. On facts, suffice it to notice that the marriage between the parties happened, on 27.05.1999 and soon thereafter the couple travelled to the husband’s place of work at Assam. As we notice from the allegations and counter allegations made; regarding what transpired prior to the marriage and after a brief tumultuous period of four months, the couple separated. On their separation, they had different versions; with the husband claiming that the wife left him abruptly on 01.11.1999 and the wife asserting that the husband unceremoniously evicted her from the matrimonial home on 31.10.1999. The fact remains that they have been separated from then, after which commenced the series of litigation. As of now, both have passed their prime and we were of the opinion that there should be a quietus in the matter which would also release both the parties from the trauma of an agonizing marriage; which was a non-starter.

5. We were of the opinion that a quietus would be possible only by severing the marriage ties but at the same time ensuring that the wife, who was in an employment before marriage and presumably left it to move out with her husband to his work place, is not left in the lurch. We are fortified in this view by Shilpa Sailesh vs. Varun Sreenivasan, (2023) 5 SCR 165,