Summary
The Supreme Court rejected the husband’s divorce appeal after finding cruelty and desertion unproved. It recognised its Article 142 power to dissolve an irretrievably broken marriage despite opposition, but held that such relief is discretionary. Considering the elderly wife’s circumstances, care of the children, willingness to care for her husband and opposition to divorce, dissolution would not do complete justice in this case.
Issues
- Whether the husband established cruelty or desertion under the Hindu Marriage Act.
- Whether long separation required dissolution under Article 142 despite the wife’s opposition and circumstances.
Provisions considered
- Section 13(1)(ia) and (ib), Hindu Marriage Act, 1955The record did not prove cruelty or desertion; the High Court’s rejection of the divorce grounds was upheld. (¶¶ 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14)
- Article 142(1), Constitution of IndiaPower to dissolve an irretrievably broken marriage was recognised but its discretionary exercise was refused after balancing both spouses’ circumstances. (¶¶ 15, 16, 17, 18, 19)
Held
- Cruelty must be assessed in the parties’ circumstances and is distinct from ordinary matrimonial wear and tear. Desertion requires separation with an intention permanently to end cohabitation, without consent and without reasonable cause. (¶¶ 9, 10, 11, 12)
- The wife’s refusal to relocate in the circumstances did not establish the alleged desertion or cruelty. The Court accepted the High Court’s assessment that the husband had failed to prove either statutory ground. (¶¶ 13, 14)
- Irretrievable breakdown does not confer a right to divorce under Article 142. The power may be exercised despite a spouse’s opposition, but demands caution and a balance of equities to secure complete justice to both parties. (¶¶ 16, 17, 18)
- Given the wife’s lifelong family responsibilities, continuing willingness to care for the husband and personal opposition to dissolution at this stage of life, divorce would cause injustice to her. The Court therefore declined the requested exceptional relief. (¶¶ 19, 20)
Result
Appeal dismissed. Refusal of divorce upheld; marriage not dissolved under Article 142.