Summary
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decree of divorce granted to the husband in second appeal, holding that the wife's false and abandoned criminal complaints amounted to mental cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act and that two decades of separation showed an irretrievable breakdown of the marriage. It awarded lump-sum permanent alimony of Rs. 50 lakh to the wife and Rs. 50 lakh to the daughter.
Issues
- Whether the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC in reversing the concurrent findings of the trial court and first appellate court that cruelty was not proved.
- Whether the wife's conduct, including filing and abandoning a dowry-harassment complaint, amounted to mental cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
- What weight prolonged separation and irretrievable breakdown of the marriage carry in deciding whether to dissolve it.
- Whether permanent alimony should be granted to the wife and the daughter though not specifically claimed.
Provisions considered
- Section 13(1)(ia), Hindu Marriage Act, 1955Relying on N.G. Dastane, Samar Ghosh and V. Bhagat, the Court held that cruelty includes conduct causing mental pain and suffering, and that the wife's pattern of false and baseless criminal complaints against the husband and his family constituted mental cruelty. (¶¶ 27, 28, 29)
- Section 13(1)(ib), Hindu Marriage Act, 1955The High Court had also found desertion; the wife contended that desertion was never pleaded. The Supreme Court upheld the decree on cruelty, prolonged separation and irretrievable breakdown without separately deciding the desertion finding. (¶¶ 16, 20, 35)
- Section 100, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908The wife's objection that the High Court reappreciated concurrent findings and introduced a new ground in second appeal was rejected as failing to address the realities of the marriage shown by the evidence. (¶¶ 17, 18, 26, 35)
- Article 142, Constitution of IndiaThe Court noted that irretrievable breakdown is not a statutory ground under the Hindu Marriage Act but that the Court has, in appropriate cases, used Article 142 to grant relief where a marriage is beyond repair. (¶¶ 32, 33)
Held
- Filing false and baseless criminal complaints against the spouse and the spouse's family, causing distress and damage to reputation, is mental cruelty within Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act; cruelty is not confined to physical violence and includes sustained conduct that makes it unreasonable to expect the spouses to live together. (¶¶ 27, 28, 29)
- Prolonged separation, here since 2004 with all reconciliation efforts having failed, gives rise to a presumption that the marriage has irretrievably broken down and is a relevant factor in matrimonial disputes; where the bond has become a mere legal formality, keeping it alive serves no purpose. (¶¶ 30, 31, 33, 34)
- The wife's procedural challenge under Section 100 CPC and her professed wish to reconcile did not displace the evidence of cruelty, long separation and breakdown; her insistence on reconciliation appeared to be a strategy to prolong the proceedings rather than a genuine effort. (¶¶ 26, 34, 35)
- Permanent alimony may be granted on dissolution even where it is not specifically claimed, and the financial independence of a spouse does not bar it where needed to secure dignity and financial stability after a long marriage. Applying the factors in Rajnesh v. Neha, a lump sum of Rs. 50 lakh was awarded to the wife, both spouses being software engineers. (¶¶ 36, 37, 39)
- Recognising both parents' duty towards their child, a further Rs. 50 lakh was awarded to the daughter for her education and future expenses, including her marriage. (¶¶ 38, 39)
Result
Appeal dismissed; decree of divorce upheld; husband directed to pay Rs. 50,00,000 to the wife as permanent alimony and Rs. 50,00,000 to the daughter within four months; no order as to costs.