NEW DELHI: Observing that compelling dead marriage to continue only creates more mental agony, Supreme Court has said that courts should grant divorce in such cases when a couple cannot live under one roof.
Bringing to an end the matrimonial dispute which has been going on for the last 16 years, a bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta allowed the plea of the husband for divorce despite the wife opposing it. The court noted that the couple has been living separately just a year after marriage and even the mediation process failed to sort out their differences. The court invoked its special power under Article 142 to do complete justice.
"It has been consistently held by this court that the institution of marriage is rooted in dignity, mutual respect and shared companionship, and when these foundational aspects are irreparably lost, forcing a couple to remain legally bound serves no beneficial purpose," the court said.
Welfare and dignity of both spouses must be prioritised, says apex court
Supreme Court said, “It has been emphasised by this court in Amutha v Subramaniam that the welfare and dignity of both the spouses must be prioritised, and that compelling a dead marriage to continue only perpetuates mental agony and societal burden.”
In this case, the couple got married in 2008 according to the Hindu rites and ceremonies but the difference cropped up between them. They started living separately from Oct 2009 onwards and the husband filed divorce petition before a family court a year after. The family court turned down his plea in 2017 and the Delhi high court also refused to grant divorce in 2019 on the ground of cruelty as alleged by him. In the meanwhile, the wife also filed a harassment case against in-laws for it was also rejected.
Noting that the parties have been living separately for more than 16 years and there has been a complete cessation of cohabitation and consortium, rendering the marriage defunct for all practical and legal purposes, the apex court allowed the divorce plea of husband.
“In the present case, it is apparent that due to complete detachment and the prolonged estrangement, there has been an irretrievable breakdown of the marital bond, which cannot be mended by any means. Moreover, both the parties have spent the prime years of their youth entangled in this marital discord, which has persisted for more than the last 15 years,” it said.
“It is as clear as a day in the case at hand, the continuance of marriage shall only fuel animosity and litigation between the parties, which runs contrary to the ethos of matrimonial harmony envisioned by the law. This would ring true even more in the light of appellant’s (husband) and his family members’ acquittal in the cruelty case preferred by the respondent. It cannot be expected by the appellant to now continue in a marital bond with the respondent, a partner who had filed and fought a false case against her husband and in-laws,” it said.
Bringing to an end the matrimonial dispute which has been going on for the last 16 years, a bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta allowed the plea of the husband for divorce despite the wife opposing it. The court noted that the couple has been living separately just a year after marriage and even the mediation process failed to sort out their differences. The court invoked its special power under Article 142 to do complete justice.
"It has been consistently held by this court that the institution of marriage is rooted in dignity, mutual respect and shared companionship, and when these foundational aspects are irreparably lost, forcing a couple to remain legally bound serves no beneficial purpose," the court said.
Welfare and dignity of both spouses must be prioritised, says apex court
Supreme Court said, “It has been emphasised by this court in Amutha v Subramaniam that the welfare and dignity of both the spouses must be prioritised, and that compelling a dead marriage to continue only perpetuates mental agony and societal burden.”
In this case, the couple got married in 2008 according to the Hindu rites and ceremonies but the difference cropped up between them. They started living separately from Oct 2009 onwards and the husband filed divorce petition before a family court a year after. The family court turned down his plea in 2017 and the Delhi high court also refused to grant divorce in 2019 on the ground of cruelty as alleged by him. In the meanwhile, the wife also filed a harassment case against in-laws for it was also rejected.
Noting that the parties have been living separately for more than 16 years and there has been a complete cessation of cohabitation and consortium, rendering the marriage defunct for all practical and legal purposes, the apex court allowed the divorce plea of husband.
“In the present case, it is apparent that due to complete detachment and the prolonged estrangement, there has been an irretrievable breakdown of the marital bond, which cannot be mended by any means. Moreover, both the parties have spent the prime years of their youth entangled in this marital discord, which has persisted for more than the last 15 years,” it said.
“It is as clear as a day in the case at hand, the continuance of marriage shall only fuel animosity and litigation between the parties, which runs contrary to the ethos of matrimonial harmony envisioned by the law. This would ring true even more in the light of appellant’s (husband) and his family members’ acquittal in the cruelty case preferred by the respondent. It cannot be expected by the appellant to now continue in a marital bond with the respondent, a partner who had filed and fought a false case against her husband and in-laws,” it said.
You may also like
Prince Harry's moving solo trip without Meghan days after 'peace summit' talks
Coronation Street 'to kill off' Billy Mayhew in shocking scenes as Daniel Brocklebank exits soap
Wimbledon Champions' Dinner menu revealed by British star as Sinner and Swiatek party
Lloyds and Santander close branches in huge blow to high street
Amy Bradley disappearance mystery unpacked as Netflix releases new documentary
