Summary
The Court dissolved a marriage that had never been consummated and in which the spouses had lived apart for almost twenty years. Failed reconciliation and the complete breakdown justified exceptional relief under Article 142 despite the wife’s opposition. Independently, her subsequent conduct during the litigation, including repeated proceedings, attempts to procure the husband’s dismissal and workplace harassment, constituted mental cruelty under Section 13(1)(i-a). The appeals were allowed, with each party bearing their own costs.
Issues
- Whether the Court should dissolve the irretrievably broken marriage under Article 142 despite absence of mutual consent.
- Whether conduct subsequent to institution of the divorce petition established mental cruelty.
Provisions considered
- Article 142, Constitution of IndiaThe Court exceptionally dissolved the unworkable marriage after almost twenty years of separation and failed reconciliation; mutual consent was not indispensable to this exercise. (¶¶ 5, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 18, 20, 21)
- Section 13(1)(i-a), Hindu Marriage Act, 1955Subsequent conduct during the litigation supplied an independent ground of mental cruelty warranting divorce. (¶¶ 15, 16, 17, 19, 20, 21)
Held
- Irretrievable breakdown was not a statutory divorce ground under the Act. The Supreme Court could nevertheless use Article 142 in an appropriate exceptional case, including where one spouse opposed dissolution. The reference discussed in the judgment did not require this contested cruelty petition to await its outcome. (¶¶ 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14)
- The spouses had never lived together even for a day, the marriage remained unconsummated, and almost twenty years of separation and unsuccessful mediation demonstrated that it could not work. Continued formal subsistence served no useful purpose on these facts. (¶¶ 2, 3, 17, 18, 20)
- The Court considered subsequent events despite the lower courts’ finding of insufficient initial cruelty. Repeated proceedings, attempts to secure disciplinary action and loss of employment, misuse of information proceedings, and workplace insults and threats formed the factual basis for mental cruelty here. These acts could not be dismissed as ordinary marital wear and tear where the parties had never cohabited. (¶¶ 15, 16, 17, 19)
- The husband’s remarriage shortly after the trial decree, following years of separation and litigation, did not defeat relief on this record. The Court passed a divorce decree both under Article 142 for irretrievable breakdown and under the statutory cruelty ground established by subsequent conduct. The appeals were allowed with parties bearing their own costs. (¶¶ 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23)
Result
Appeals allowed; marriage dissolved by a decree of divorce under Article 142 and Section 13(1)(i-a). Parties to bear their own costs.