A bench comprising Justices B. R. Gavai, Aravind Kumar, and K. V. Vishwanathan dissolved the couple’s marriage, which was solemnized in 2013, after mediation efforts failed and both parties acknowledged that their marriage had irretrievably broken down.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court has stated that it can depart from both procedural and substantive laws when granting a divorce to a couple that has been living apart since 2019.
A bench comprising Justices B. R. Gavai, Aravind Kumar, and K. V. Vishwanathan dissolved the couple’s marriage, which was solemnized in 2013, after mediation efforts failed and both parties acknowledged that their marriage had irretrievably broken down.
Citing the Constitution bench decision in Shilpa Sailesh Vs. Varun Sreenivasan (2023), the bench noted that under Article 142(1) of the Constitution, the Supreme Court has the discretion to dissolve marriages on the basis of irretrievable breakdown.
This discretionary power aims to ensure “complete justice” for the parties when it is evident that the marriage has completely failed and that there is no chance of reconciliation, rendering the continuation of the legal relationship unjust.
READ ALSO: “Child Marriage Prevention Law Can’t Be Limited by Personal Laws”: CJI D.Y. Chandrachud
In this case, the woman filed a transfer petition to move her pending proceedings under the Hindu Marriage Act from the Family Court in Roorkee, Uttarakhand, to the Family Court at Patiala House Courts, New Delhi.
Meanwhile, the husband filed a petition under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, alleging that the wife had breached their trust by maintaining a relationship with another man despite warnings against it. He claimed that since the wife secured a teaching job in July 2022, she had neglected both him and their daughter.
The petitioner-wife contended that she returned to her parental home because the husband had neglected her and their child. Given the circumstances, the bench concluded that exercising power under Article 142(1) of the Constitution was necessary to ensure complete justice, particularly as the marriage had completely failed, with no cohabitation since 2019 and no prospects for future reconciliation.
The court also highlighted that both parties are relatively young 32 and 38 years old, respectively and have their futures ahead of them. Consequently, the bench approved a settlement agreement, which included a deposit of Rs 7,00,000 by the husband for their minor daughter, along with an agreement to pay Rs 13 lakh as permanent alimony to the wife. The court emphasized that continuing the legal relationship would only serve as a burden for both parties.
