Continued litigation, complaints to remove spouse from job amounts to cruelty: Supreme Court grants divorce

The Supreme Court on Monday held that continued allegations and litigation against spouse amounts to cruelty Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act and would be a ground for divorce (Sivasankaran vs. Santhimeenal)..The Bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Hrishikesh Roy further observed that filing of complaints seeking removal of one’s spouse from job amounts to mental cruelty."The fact that there have been continued allegations and litigative proceedings and that can amount to cruelty is an aspect taken note of by this court," the Bench said while allowing husband's plea for divorce. The Court acknowledged that a Constitution Bench was examining the larger issue regarding the exercise of powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to dissolve marriage between consenting parties. However, it noted that in various instances the Supreme Court had exercised this power to grant divorce.The Division Bench observed that the issue before the Constitution Bench had been pending for the last five years and therefore, if a marital tie was not working, no purpose would be served by postponing the inevitable simply for the pendency of the reference.“Living together is not a compulsory exercise. But marriage is a tie between two parties. If this tie is not working under any circumstances, we see no purpose in postponing the inevitability of the situation merely because of the pendency of the reference," the judgment said..The Bench was hearing a plea by the husband seeking divorce from his wife of nearly 20 years.“It appears there was a crash landing at the take-of stage itself,” read the order since the wife left the marriage hall the very night of the wedding and the marriage was never consummated.The marriage went through several rounds of litigation. The trial court granted divorce on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage, the appellate court set aside the order and in second appeal the decree of divorce was restored. However, a review petition filed by the wife contending the High Court lacked jurisdiction to grant a decree of divorce on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage was allowed. Hence, the matter eventually reached Supreme Court..It was submitted that the respondent was not willing to accept the decree even though both the parties were living separate lives for almost two decades.In fact, it was even stated that the respondent was not disturbed by the status of the second marriage of the husband but was unwilling to concede to a scenario where her marriage with the appellant came to an end..The Bench concluded without hesitation that the marriage had not worked and cannot work, not only on the account of the appellant’s second marriage but also because the parties were so troubled by each other that they were not willing to even think of living together..However, the Bench also observed that this was a difficult situation since there was lack of mutual consent.“One of the more difficult situations is where, in the opinion of the court, there is irretrievable breakdown of marriage but only one of the parties is willing to acknowledge the same and accept divorce on that account, while the other side seeks to oppose it even if it means carrying on with the marriage.”.It was pointed out that under the Hindu Law, marriage is sacramental in character and is supposed to be an eternal union of two people and society at large does not accept divorce, given the heightened importance of marriage as a social institution in India..This coupled with the law’s failure to guarantee economic and financial security to women in the event of a breakdown of marriage is the reason for the legislature’s reluctance to introduce irretrievable breakdown as a ground for divorce, the Court observed..However, two judicial pronouncements in R Srinivas Kumar v. R Shametha and Munish Kakkar v. Nidhi Kakkar were referred to by the Bench where the Supreme Court had opined that consent was not necessary for exercise of powers under Article 142 of the Constitution..Considering the factual background of the case, it was noted by the Court that the continuing acts of the respondent such as multiple cases, initiation of disciplinary action against the appellant after the institution of the petition constituted cruelty.“This conduct shows disintegration of marital unity and thus disintegration of the marriage. In fact, there was no initial integration itself which would allow disintegration afterwards," the Court said..Therefore, the marriage was dissolved not only in exercise of powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India on account of irretrievable breakdown of marriage, but also on account of cruelty under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Act..[Read Judgement]