Twenty-seven years after a former Armed Forces officer moved court to divorce his wife, the Supreme Court has dismissed the petition, reminding the 89-year-old and his wife, now 82, that “marriage is still considered to be a pious, spiritual and invaluable emotional life-net between husband and wife in Indian society”.
The couple married in March 1963 and had two daughters and a son.
Problems began after the officer was transferred from Amritsar to Madras in January 1984. His wife, a teacher, refused to join him, opting to stay with her in-laws and later with her son.
When attempts to reach an amicable settlement failed, the husband filed a petition seeking divorce on the grounds of cruelty and desertion.
He contended that his wife did not even call upon him when he was admitted to an Army hospital following a heart attack and that she complained to his superiors against him to malign his image. All these, he said, amounted to cruelty.
He said they have been living separately ever since March 1997 when he filed the divorce petition in a District Court. Citing irretrievable breakdown of marriage, he said the Court should exercise powers under Article 142 of the Constitution and grant a decree of divorce.
His wife, however, said that being an elderly woman, she did not want to die with the “stigma” of a “divorcee”. She said she “made all efforts to respect the sacred relationship between the parties all throughout and is still ready to look after the appellant (husband) with the assistance of her son”.
She also contended that a “mere long period of separation could not tantamount to irretrievable breakdown of the marriage”.
The Chandigarh District Court granted them divorce in February 2000. But on an appeal by the wife, a single-judge bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court reversed the order in December 2000. In February 2009, a division bench of the High Court confirmed the order of the single-judge bench, following which the husband approached the Supreme Court.
The top court too agreed with the High Court findings on the aspect of cruelty and desertion and said “suffice it to say that the appellant (husband) failed to prove that the respondent had treated the appellant with “Cruelty” or that the respondent had “Deserted” the petitioner as contemplated in” law.
The October 10 judgement by the bench of Justices Aniruddha Bose and Bela M Trivedi said, “There is no dispute that the parties are staying separate since last many years and all the efforts to bring them together have failed. Under the circumstances, one may presume that the marriage is emotionally dead and beyond salvation and that there is an irretrievable breakdown of marriage between the parties.”
“However, the question is, should the irretrievable breakdown of marriage necessarily result in a decree of divorce to be granted under Article 142 of the Constitution of India?” it said.
The ruling pointed out that a Constitution Bench, in Shilpa Shailesh vs. Varun Sreenivasan in May this year, had said that the court can use Article 142 powers to grant divorce on grounds of irretrievable breakdown of marriage.
Most Read
“However, in our opinion, one should not be oblivious to the fact that the institution of marriage occupies an important place and plays an important role in society. Despite the increasing trend of filing divorce proceedings in the courts of law, the institution of marriage is still considered to be a pious, spiritual, and invaluable emotional life-net between the husband and the wife in Indian society. It is governed not only by the letters of law but by social norms as well. So many other relationships stem from and thrive on the matrimonial relationships in the society. Therefore, it would not be desirable to accept the formula of ‘irretrievable breakdown of marriage’ as a strait-jacket formula for the grant of relief of divorce under Article 142 of the Constitution of India,” the bench said.
It said “so far as the facts of the present case are concerned, as stated earlier, the appellant-husband is aged about 89 years and respondent-wife is aged about 82 years. The respondent all throughout her life has maintained the sacred relationship since 1963 and has taken care of her three children all these years, despite the fact that the appellant-husband had exhibited total hostility towards them. The respondent is still ready and willing to take care of her husband and does not wish to leave him alone at this stage of life. She has also expressed her sentiments that she does not want to die with the stigma of being a ‘divorcee’ woman”.
Dismissing the appeal, the order stated “in contemporary society, it may not constitute to be a stigma but here we are concerned with the respondent’s own sentiment. Under the circumstances, considering and respecting the sentiments of the respondent wife, the Court is of the opinion that exercising the discretion in favour of the appellant under Article 142 by dissolving the marriage between parties on the ground that the marriage has irretrievably broken down, would not be doing ‘complete justice’ to the parties, would rather be doing injustice to the respondent”.
If you want to register your marriage in thane visit : https://marriageregistrationthane.com/court-marriage-registration-in-thane