Summary
After prolonged separation, unsuccessful reconciliation and sustained litigation, the Court dissolved the marriage under Article 142 on irretrievable breakdown despite the wife’s lack of consent. It did not treat breakdown as a statutory divorce ground or require a fresh determination of the cruelty allegations. Existing monthly maintenance continued, with liberty to seek variation through appropriate proceedings.
Issues
- Whether the circumstances warranted Article 142 dissolution despite absence of mutual consent.
- What should happen to existing maintenance.
Held
- Irretrievable breakdown was not a statutory ground, but the Supreme Court could exceptionally exercise Article 142 where the marriage was wholly unworkable and beyond salvage, including without both parties’ consent. Such power is exercised in rare cases rather than routinely. (¶¶ 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, 21)
- Repeated mediation and counselling had failed after approximately sixteen years of separation. The relationship was emotionally exhausted and continued legal ties caused further distress; the circumstances justified immediate dissolution without revisiting the competing allegations in detail. (¶¶ 11, 13, 16, 17, 18, 20, 22, 23)
- The existing Rs.7,500 monthly maintenance must continue. Either party could institute appropriate proceedings for enhancement, reduction or cessation; the divorce itself did not terminate that payment. (¶ 24)
Result
Appeal allowed with parties bearing their own costs. Marriage dissolved forthwith under Article 142. Monthly maintenance of Rs.7,500 continued, subject to variation through appropriate proceedings.