The Supreme Court has said if husband and wife have not been able to subserve the very objective of the marriage of companionship for each other from the very inception and have been living separately for more than 19 years, it is appropriate that they formally part company.
A bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and M M Sundresh used its extraordinary power to do complete justice under Article 142 of the Constitution to allow the woman's plea for divorce, on account of irretrievable breakdown of the marriage.
In the instant case, the woman sought divorce on the ground of cruelty and harassment but her husband opposed it. She even offered to go through a mutual consent divorce and withdraw all allegations, including a case of dowry harassment, and not claim any maintenance from now onwards.
The court noted there is little doubt, that the marriage did not take off from the very beginning.
The marriage took place on June 09, 2002, and on June 29, 2002, the case was registered under Sections 498-A and 406, IPC alleging that the woman was not being permitted to enter the house on account of her inability to satisfy the dowry demands. She filed the divorce petition was on September 09, 2003.
Going through the facts of the case, the bench wondered, "We are of the view that if this is not an irretrievable breakdown of marriage then what would be the situation of that kind!"
The top court referred to its judgement in the case of 'Sivasankaran vs Santhimeenal' decided on September 13, 2021, wherein it had noted cruelty was made out as also the marriage did not take off from the very inception for almost 20 years, somewhat similar in the present case.
"We thus observed that there was the disintegration of marital unity and thus disintegration of the marriage (A Jayachandra vs Aneel Kaur) (2005) and went out to notice that there was no initial integration itself which would really allow disintegration afterwards. The position is not different in this case. We are thus of the view that it is appropriate that the parties formally part company having actually lived apart for about 19 years," the bench said.
Check out latest DH videos here
Deccan Herald is on WhatsApp Channels | Join now for Breaking News & Editor's Picks