Supreme Court can dissolve marriage on grounds of ‘Irretrievable breakdown of marriage’

The Supreme Court in the case of “Munish Kakkar vs Nidhi Kakkar” (Civil Appeal No. 9318 of 2014) decided on 17.12.2019 has reiterated its earlier position that in exercise of its inherent powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, it can dissolve marriage on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage, notwithstanding the fact that this is not a recognized ground for dissolution of marriage under any law of the country.

Facts:

The marriage between the parties was solemnized according to Hindu rites in the year 2000. The parties stayed together for about two months. Thereafter, the respondent left for Canada to be with her family. Somewhere in 2002, the respondent obtained Canadian citizenship. It does appear that the respondent was apparently interested in Canadian citizenship and only after having achieved that, came back to India.

Even after coming back there were continuous quarrels between the parties. The panchayat also intervened, and the parties were asked to reside separately from their family, in a rented accommodation, but that too did not last for more than a couple of months. The respondent then again left for Canada.

The appellant filed for a divorce U/S 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 on the ground of cruelty before the lower Court and the Additional District Judge granted a decree of divorce against which an appeal was filed before the High Court of Punjab.

The High Court set aside the decree of divorce, attributing various allegations exchanged between the parties to the wear and tear of marriage and “inflamed passions”. The High Court opined that these were not adequate to knock down the walls of marriage. Aggrieved by this the appellant filed an appeal before the Apex Court.

Held:

The Supreme Court observed that the relationship appears to have deteriorated to such an extent that both parties see little good in each other, an aspect supported by the counselor’s report; though the respondent insists that she wants to stay with the appellant. It was noted by the Supreme Court, this insistence is only to somehow not let a decree of divorce be passed against the respondent. This is only to frustrate the endeavor of the appellant to get a decree of divorce, completely losing sight of the fact that matrimonial relationships require adjustments from both sides and a willingness to stay together. The mere say of such willingness would not suffice. The Court also noted that all endeavors have been made to persuade the parties to live together, which have not succeeded. For that, it would not be appropriate to blame one or the other party, but the fact is that nothing remains in this marriage.

Insofar as the aspect of irretrievable breakdown of the marriage is concerned, it was held that since that did not form part of statutory law in India, that could not be treated as a ground. However, the separation of sixteen (16) years since 2003 had made both the parties bitter and cynical about the relationship and there was no sign of any affection or bonding on either side. The parties apparently had no history of pleasant time and only feelings of resentment arising from the several court cases. There was also no family support from either side.

The Court thus in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, granted a decree of divorce and dissolved the marriage inter se the parties forthwith.