The Supreme Court of India.
Credit: Reuters Photo
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday said though in matrimonial matters involving two individuals, it is not for the society or for the court to sit in judgment over which spouses’ approach is correct or not, it is their strongly held views and their refusal to accommodate each other that amounts to cruelty to one another.
A bench of Justices Manmoham and Joymalya Bagchi dissolved marriage of a couple solemnised in 2000 as the parties were living separately since 2001.
The court used its power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to hold the marriage between the parties who have irretrievably broken down.
In the judgment, Justice Manmohan for the bench clarified that this court was conscious of the view that the approach of the courts should be to preserve the sanctity of marriage and the court should be reluctant to dissolve the marriage at the mere asking of one of the parties.
"But, in the present case, the parties have lived separately for far too long a period of time and there is no sanctity left in the marriage. Also, rapprochement is not in the realm of possibility. Grant of divorce in the present proceedings would not have a devastating effect on any third party, as there are no children from the wedlock," the bench said.
The court noted the matrimonial litigation between the parties commenced within two years of marriage i.e. 2003 and has been pending for last 22 years. The parties have been living separately for 24 years.
The couple got married in 2000 as per Hindu rites and rituals. They knew each other prior to their marriage as they had been working together since 1992 as Development Officers under Life Insurance Corporation of India Ltd
However, the wife left the matrimonial home in 2001 as the husband and her family insisted her to leave the job. The husband then sought divorce on the ground of desertion. In 2010, his plea was allowed. The Gauhati HC, however, set it aside.
Allowing the appellant's plea, the bench said, in a multitude of cases, this court has had the opportunity to deal with situations where parties have been living separately for a considerable time and it has been consistently held that a long period of separation without any hope for reconciliation amounts to cruelty to both the parties.