The Supreme Court expressed concern over the state of marriages, lamenting that couples are marrying only to end up filing cases shortly after. Justices remarked that the institution of marriage is under strain due to increasing marital disputes, highlighting societal shifts. The comments were made in response to a case where a couple faced difficulties consummating their marriage.
NEW DELHI: On 25th April: The Supreme Court of India raised concern over the growing number of couples approaching the judiciary without making genuine efforts to uphold their marital commitments or resolve disputes amicably. This troubling trend of couples readily resorting to divorce petitions, often without attempting to reconcile, poses a threat to the foundation of marital unity and stability.
The court highlighted the need to address the conflict between modern values and traditional societal norms, emphasizing the importance of preserving the institution of marriage.
The bench of Justices Surya Kant and PS Narasimha expressed surprise at the frequency of marriage-related disputes, stating,
“We are amazed at the kinds of marriages happening nowadays. They marry in 2021; by 2022 and 2023, they are filing cases against each other; and in 2024, we have transfer petitions before us.”
The court noted that the issue extends beyond legal burdens, reflecting broader societal shifts.
“The institution of marriage is under strain. There is a lot of conflict between modern values and traditional values,” remarked the bench. “They don’t even try. We can understand if they are trying. There are cases where they have lived together for only a few days and want to separate.”
Justice Kant recounted a recent case where a couple expressed reluctance to consummate their marriage or even live together.
“We failed to understand. You don’t want to live together as husband and wife, why did you marry? What kind of marriages are happening?” he remarked.
In response, senior counsel Dushyant Dave, representing the man in the case, acknowledged the challenging times society faces.
“The very institution of marriage is under severe strain. These are strange times. And so many of such cases are coming from Rajasthan,” he commented.
In a recent case, where a man sought anticipatory bail in a rape case after eloping and marrying a girl against her parents’ wishes, the bench of justices Surya Kant and PS Narasimha expressed their astonishment at the state of marriages today. The court lamented the lack of effort shown by couples in resolving their differences, even in cases where they had only been together for a few days.
READ ALSO: Calcutta High Court: No Bail for ‘Child Marriage’ Offenders
Senior counsel Dushyant Dave, representing the man, acknowledged that the institution of marriage is currently under severe strain and that society must face these challenging times. The court recognized that it regularly hears numerous cases revolving around personal and intimate disputes, indicating the magnitude of the issue.
Addressing the specific case, the court granted pre-arrest bail to the man, acknowledging that the criminal charges may have arisen due to conflicts between the families involved. While an amicable settlement was proposed, the woman’s lawyer expressed unwillingness to withdraw the criminal proceedings.
The court advised the man to approach the Rajasthan High Court to seek the quashing of the First Information Report (FIR), while also rejecting the police’s request for custodial interrogation, emphasizing the right against self-incrimination.
The judgment authored by Justice Bela M Trivedi emphasized the significance of the institution of marriage in society, stating,
“One should not be oblivious to the fact that the institution of marriage occupies an important place and plays an important role in society. Despite the increasing trend of filing the divorce proceedings in the courts of law, the institution of marriage is still considered to be a pious, spiritual, and invaluable emotional life-net between the husband and the wife in Indian society.”
While sections 13(1)(ia) and 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act provide grounds for divorce based on cruelty and desertion, respectively, the concept of irretrievable breakdown of marriage is not recognized as a ground for divorce under the law. This concept was introduced by the top court through successive decisions.
The Supreme Court has previously emphasized the sanctity of marriage, considering it a pious and emotional bond between spouses, bound not only by legal provisions but also by social norms. The court discourages the acceptance of the “irretrievable breakdown of marriage” as a universal ground for divorce, instead emphasizing the role of mediation and reconciliation in preserving the marital institution.
