PRAKASHCHANDRA JOSHI versus KUNTAL PRAKASHCHANDRA JOSHI @ KUNTAL VISANJI SHAH

Citation: [2024] 1 S.C.R. 697 · Decided: 24-01-2024 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

* Author
[2024] 1 S.C.R. 697 : 2024 INSC 55
Prakashchandra Joshi 
v. 
Kuntal Prakashchandra Joshi @ Kuntal Visanji Shah 
(Civil Appeal No. 934 of 2024)
24 January 2024
[B.R. Gavai and Prashant Kumar Mishra,* JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Whether a decree for divorce can be granted for the reason that 
the marriage has irretrievably broken down. 
Headnotes
Marriage – Irretrievable break down – Appellant contended 
that the appellant and the respondent were living apart due 
to matrimonial discord for the last 13 years and as there are 
no prospects for reconciliation, the marriage has irretrievably 
broken down:
Held: The appellant lost his job in Canada and the family came 
back to India in January, 2011 – The couple last resided together 
in appellant’s mother’s house till 19.02.2011 – After this date, they 
lost contact with each other, and the respondent refused to return 
to the matrimonial home – On being contacted, the respondent 
refused to resume matrimonial life unless the appellant separates 
from his family and resides in a separate household – On account 
of appellant’s inability to accede to this demand of the respondent, 
she never returned to resume the matrimonial life – The respondent 
did not appear in the proceedings u/s. 9 of the Hindu Marriage 
Act, despite receiving summons – Similarly, in the present divorce 
proceedings also the respondent failed to enter appearance despite 
service of notice in the Trial Court, High Court and Supreme Court 
as well – Thus, it is apparent that the respondent does not wish to 
continue the marital chord and is not responding to court summons 
– There is no hesitation in holding that the present is a case of 
irretrievable breakdown of marriage as there is no possibility of the 
couple staying together – For the foregoing reasons, the marriage 
between the parties is dissolved in exercise of powers u/Art. 142(1) 
of the Constitution. [Paras 11, 12, 15, 16]
698
[2024] 1 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
Case Law Cited
Shilpa Sailesh vs. Varubn Sreenivasan, [2023] 5 SCR 
165 : (2023) SCC online SC 544 – relied on.
Sukhendu Das vs. Rita Mukherjee, (2017) 9 SCC 632; 
Samar Ghosh vs. Jaya Ghosh, [2007] 4 SCR 428: 
(2007) 4 SCC 511 – referred to.
List of Acts
Constitution of India.
List of Keywords
Irretrievable break down of marriage; matrimonial discord; Couple 
living separately; non-appearance of party; Dissolution of marriage; 
Decree for divorce; Article 142(1) of Constitution.
Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 934 of 2024.
From the Judgment and Order dated 24.06.2021 of the High Court 
of Judicature at Bombay in FCA No.162 of 2019.
Appearances for Parties
Dhananjay Bhaskar Ray, Adv. for the Appellant.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
Prashant Kumar Mishra, J.
Leave granted. 
2.	
The instant appeal is directed against the judgment and order 
impugned dated 24.06.2021 passed by the High Court of Judicature 
at Bombay in Family Court Appeal No. 162 of 2019 whereby the 
High Court, while affirming the order of the Family Court, dismissed 
the appeal seeking dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce. 
3.	
The facts in brief are that the marriage between the appellant and 
respondent was solemnized on 05.01.2004 as per the rituals of 
Hindu religion after having spent eight years in courtship. They 
are Indian citizens by birth. However, they acquired citizenship 
[2024] 1 S.C.R. 
699
Prakashchandra Joshi v. Kuntal Prakashchandra Joshi 
@ Kuntal Visanji Shah
of Canada for financial gain and were living a normal and happy 
matrimonial life in Canada. A male child was born from the wedlock 
on 21.05.2010. In the year 2011, the appellant started experiencing 
medical problems namely, constant back and shoulder pain as well 
as skin related problems, especially during summer due to rag weed 
allergy resulting into sleepless nights and miserable days. During 
the period of recession in Canada, the appellant lost his job and the 
couple along with the minor child returned to India on 29.01.2011. The 
respondent after wilfully staying at her matrimonial home, joined her 
parental house on 20.02.2011. After some time, when the appellant 
asked the respondent to resume cohabitation, the respondent did 
not pay any heed and refused to join the company of the appellant. 
The respondent was interested in returning to Canada for a better 
future. The appellant, however, expressed his unwillingness to shift to 
Canada owing to

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.