'Daughter of divorced parents won't get suitable match': Man's plea fails to move Supreme Court

New Delhi: The Supreme Court has granted divorce to a couple on ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage, rejecting the claims of man that his wife had 'disowned him' after she got a government job.

The court was also not impressed with the man's claim that it would be difficult to marry his daughter, undergoing MBBS studies, in the rural set up of Bihar as no respectable family would agree to give in marriage their son with the child of a divorcee.

"She is approaching marriageable age. We found her sufficiently mature to make her own decisions," a bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Manmohan said, after interacting with her on virtual platform.

The bench said that it is a fit case to invoke powers conferred by Article 142 of the Constitution and to dissolve the marriage on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage due to the prolonged period of separation as the parties lived separately since 2008.

The court also noted multiple failed attempts at reconciliation, indicating no possibility of reunion, as well as the age of the parties as both are quinquagenarian.

The court also did not order for any alimony as the wife did not make any claim for it.

With regard to man's plea against granting divorce as it would not be in the best interest of the child, the bench said, "We are not impressed by this submission, especially in light of the fact that the respondent-husband and his daughter have had no contact during the entire period of separation. To us, this appears to be a mere attempt to prolong the litigation and stall the inevitable".

Even though the respondent-husband vehemently opposed dissolution of marriage contending that none of the available grounds on which a Hindu marriage could be dissolved was present, the bench said, "The same is not a bar for us to exercise our powers under Article 142 of the Constitution; more particularly when we are satisfied that it is a case of irretrievable breakdown of marriage".

Allowing a petition by the woman, working as a Child Development Project Officer, against the Patna High Court's order refusing her plea for divorce and allowing the mans plea for restitution of conjugal relations, the court also interacted with the daughter of the couple who was in the 2nd year of her MBBS course.

The marriage between the appellant-wife and the respondent-husband was solemnised on April 24, 1999. They were blessed with a daughter on June 7, 2001. According to the appellant-wife, they have been living separately since 2008 while the respondent-husband claims that the separation is since 2012.

The appellant-wife ruled out any scope for such reconciliation and insisted for a decree of divorce on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage.

The respondent husband said he was more than willing to have resumption of marital relationship particularly for the future of the child. He contended that the petitioner-wife started showing her true colours once she obtained public employment.

He claimed he had huge contributions for what the appellant-wife is today. Not only was she encouraged by him to prepare for securing public employment, the entire expenses for her to live a dignified, fulfilling and meaningful life were borne by him. Conveniently, she repudiated the contribution of the respondent-husband and disowned him after such employment.

The man further contended in light of the socio-economic conditions of the rural area from where the respondent-husband hails, it would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to find a suitable groom for his child. Having regard to the stigma that is attached with a divorce, no respectable family would agree to give in marriage their son with the child of a divorcee, his counsel said.

On the contrary, the wife contended that the child of the parties has since grown up and she is an adult, pursuing her medical course. She said the respondent-husband never cared for his child and all expenses for her up-bringing as well as education have been borne by the appellant-wife. That apart, she said, she was an aspirant for public employment even before her marriage. With great deal of personal effort and without anyone’s assistance she could secure public employment, she said.