Summary
The husband's petition for divorce on the ground of cruelty had been dismissed concurrently by the Family Court and the High Court. Noting that the parties had lived apart since October 2009 (about sixteen years), that mediation had failed and that the husband and his family had been acquitted in the cruelty case filed by the wife, the Court exercised its power under Article 142 of the Constitution to dissolve the marriage on the ground of irretrievable breakdown and enhanced the monthly maintenance for the wife and minor son to Rs. 15,000.
Issues
- Whether, despite concurrent findings that cruelty was not proved, the marriage should be dissolved under Article 142 of the Constitution on the ground of irretrievable breakdown.
- Whether the maintenance payable to the respondent-wife and the minor child should be enhanced.
Provisions considered
- Article 142, Constitution of IndiaInvoked to dissolve the marriage on the ground of irretrievable breakdown, a ground recognised by the Court in Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan, after finding complete detachment and prolonged estrangement between the parties. (¶¶ 16, 25, 27)
- Section 13(1) (divorce on the ground of cruelty), Hindu Marriage Act, 1955The husband's petition for divorce on the ground of cruelty was dismissed by the Family Court and the High Court as the allegations were unsubstantiated; the Court did not disturb that finding but granted divorce on a different footing under Article 142. (¶¶ 4, 6, 10)
- Section 125, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973The wife sought enhancement of the Rs. 7,500 maintenance awarded under this provision; considering that the husband is a clerk in a private firm and the wife a homemaker caring for a 16-year-old son, the Court enhanced the composite monthly maintenance to Rs. 15,000. (¶¶ 19, 26, 27)
Held
- Two considerations weighed with the Court: the husband and his family members had been acquitted in the cruelty case filed by the wife, and it was admitted that the parties had been living separately since October 2009, almost sixteen years. (¶ 21)
- The institution of marriage rests on dignity, mutual respect and shared companionship; when these are irreparably lost, forcing a couple to remain legally bound serves no beneficial purpose, and compelling a dead marriage to continue only perpetuates mental agony and societal burden (Amutha v. A.R. Subramaniam followed). (¶ 22)
- Complete detachment and prolonged estrangement of more than fifteen years established an irretrievable breakdown of the marital bond; continuing the marriage would only fuel animosity and litigation, all the more so because the husband and his family had been acquitted in the cruelty case the wife had filed. (¶¶ 23, 24)
- It was in the best interest of both parties and their minor child that they lead their lives independently; the Court found it a fit case to exercise its power under Article 142 and grant divorce on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage. (¶¶ 25, 27)
- Having regard to the husband's employment as a clerk in a private firm and the wife being a homemaker independently caring for the 16-year-old son, it was just and equitable to enhance the monthly maintenance to a composite Rs. 15,000 for the wife and the child. (¶¶ 26, 27)
Result
Appeal allowed; High Court order dated 26.02.2019 set aside; marriage dissolved and decree of divorce granted under Article 142 of the Constitution; appellant to pay composite monthly maintenance of Rs. 15,000 to the respondent and the child; no order as to costs; Registry to draw the decree.