Based on the factual details and hearing submissions from all parties, the judge said that the case was suitable for the exercise of the powers conferred on the court under Article 142 of the Constitution. (data map)
The court noted that since 2002, the parties have engaged in numerous legal proceedings and filed six cases against each other, including criminal cases
The Supreme Court dissolved the marriage of a medical couple on the grounds that their marriage had irretrievably broken down, noting that they had lived together for a total of 43 days over the past 22 years and that their conduct had rendered their marital bond irreparable.
A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Satish Chandra Sharma also refused to grant any permanent alimony as both parties are professionally qualified doctors and have sufficient and equal income.
“The marriage has ceased to exist in substance and reality. The relationship has even become unhappy as rivalry has also arisen between the two families. The conduct of the respondent-wife in filing a missing complaint against the appellant after the impugned order is also shown Tensions between the parties,” the judge said.
Based on the husband's plea, the court set aside the Allahabad High Court's 2019 judgment allowing the wife's appeal and set aside the divorce order granted by the Meerut Family Court in 2006.
Based on the factual details and hearing submissions from all parties, the judge said that the case was suitable for the exercise of the powers conferred on the court under Article 142 of the Constitution.
It pointed out that the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Shilpa Shailesh v Varun Sreenivasan (2023) held that this Court has the discretion to dissolve a marriage on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage in “full justice” to both parties even if one of the parties objects Such a prayer.
The judge said: “In this case we are convinced that the marriage has completely failed, that it is impossible for the parties to live together and that it is therefore unreasonable to continue to maintain a further legal relationship.”
The court noted that the couple had lived together according to their own wishes for less than 23 days since their marriage. From June 15, 2005 to July 5, 2015, they lived together for another 20 days as the court passed the mediation order.
“Thus, the parties have not lived together for more than 43 days. The respondent left her matrimonial home within the first month of marriage. The separation has lasted for more than 22 years. Since both parties are now in their early 50s and have established have an independent life, so the possibility of both parties living together is further reduced.
Furthermore, the court noted that since 2002, the parties have engaged in numerous legal proceedings and filed six cases against each other, including criminal cases. The defendant instituted criminal proceedings against the appellant and his family, who were arrested but subsequently released and acquitted.
The court added that although the defendant wife claimed that she was willing to live with the appellant and believed in the sanctity of marriage, her actions were inconsistent with her claims.
“During these 22 long years, no one stopped her from living with the appellant. The mediation and settlement process failed,” the judge said.
The appellant, on the other hand, submitted that the assertion of willingness to cohabit was a false assertion made solely to mislead the court, delay the proceedings and harass him.
“Considering the separation period of 22 years, the non-existence of marital relationship between the parties and the bad relationship arising out of the ongoing legal battle, we are of the view that the case is fit for exercise of the extraordinary powers conferred by Article 142 of the Constitution,” the bench said .
The bench also referred to the case of Rajib Kumar Roy v. Sushmita Saha (2023), in which the court exercised its power under Article 142 of the Constitution to dissolve the marriage between parties who had been separated for 12 years.
The SC ultimately allowed the appeal against the high court order.
