R. SRINIVAS KUMAR versus R. SHAMETHA

Citation: [2019] 12 S.C.R. 873 · Decided: 04-10-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SANJAY KISHAN KAUL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 5 judgment(s) · cites 7 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
873
R. SRINIVAS KUMAR
v.
R. SHAMETHA
(Civil Appeal No. 4696 of  2013)
OCTOBER 04, 2019
[SANJAY KISHAN KAUL AND M. R. SHAH, JJ.]
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955:
s. 13(1) – Petition under – On the grounds mentioned in s.
13(1)(ia) and (ib) – Also sought divorce on the ground of
irretrievable breakdown of marriage – Refused by courts below –
In appeal to Supreme Court sought divorce on the ground of
irretrievable  breakdown of marriage in exercise of powers under
Art. 142 of the Constitution – Held: Supreme Court in exercise of
its inherent powers u/Art. 142 can dissolve the marriage on the
ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage,  even if the facts
of the case do not provide a ground in law on which divorce could
be granted – In the facts of the case, the marriage is dissolved on
the grounds of irretrievable breakdown of  marriage in exercise
of power u/Art. 142 on the condition that husband pays a
permanent alimony quantified at Rs. twenty lakhs to the wife –
Constitution of India – Art. 142.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. In exercise of powers under Article 142 of the
Constitution of India, the marriage can be dissolved on the
ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage. If both the parties
to the marriage agree for separation permanently and/or consent
for divorce, in that case, certainly both the parties can move the
competent court for a decree of divorce by mutual consent.  Only
in a case where one of the parties do not agree and give
consent, the powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of
India are required to be invoked to do the substantial Justice
between the parties, considering the facts and circumstances of
the case.  However, at the same time, the interest of the wife is
also required to be protected financially so that she may not have
873
   [2019] 12 S.C.R. 873
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
874
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 12 S.C.R.
to suffer financially in future and she may not have to depend
upon others. [Para 6] [879-C-F]
2. The Supreme Court has exercised its inherent powers
under Article 142 of the Constitution of India for dissolution of
a marriage where the Court finds that the marriage is totally
unworkable, emotionally dead, beyond salvage and has broken
down irretrievably, even if the facts of the case do not provide
a ground in law on which the divorce could be granted. In the
present case, admittedly, the appellant-husband and the
respondent-wife have been living separately for more than 22
years and it will not be possible for the parties to live together.
Therefore, while protecting the interest of the respondent-wife
to compensate her by way of lump sum permanent alimony, this
is a fit case to exercise the powers under Article 142 of the
Constitution of India and to dissolve the marriage between the
parties. [Para 7] [879-F-H; 880-A]
3. The application for divorce filed by the appellant-
husband for dissolution of marriage is hereby allowed. The
marriage between the appellant-husband and the respondent-wife
is ordered to be dissolved in exercise of powers under Article
142 of the Constitution of India on the condition and as agreed
by the counsel for the appellant-husband that the appellant-
husband shall pay to the respondent-wife a lump sum permanent
alimony, quantified at Rs.20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lakhs) to
be paid directly to the respondent-wife by way of demand draft
within a period of eight weeks. Till the permanent alimony as
above is paid to the respondent-wife, the appellant-husband to
continue to pay the maintenance as being paid to her. [Para 8]
[880-B-C]
Naveen Kohli v. Neelu Kohli (2006) 4 SCC 558 :
[2006] 3 SCR 53 ; Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh (2007)
4 SCC 511 : [2007] 4 SCR 428 ; Sukhendu Das v.
Rita Mukherjee (2017) 9 SCC 632 – relied on.
Durga Prasad Tripathy v. Arundathi Tripathy (2005)
7 SCC 353 : [2005] 2 Suppl. SCR 833 ; Sanghamitra
Ghosh v. Kajal Kumar Ghosh (2007) 2 SCC 220 :
[2006] 9 Suppl. SCR 156 ; K. Srinivas Rao v. D.A.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
875
Deepa (2013) 5 SCC 226 : [2013] 2 SCR 126 ;
Chetna Dass v. Kamla Devi (2001) 4 SCC 250 : [2001]
3 SCR  20 ; Vishnu Dutt Sharma v. Manju Sharma
(2009) 6 SCC 379 : [2009] 3 SCR 891 ; Hitesh
Bhatnagar v. Deepa Bhatnagar (2011) 5 SCC 234 :
[2001] 6 SCR 118 ; Darshan Gupta v. Radhika Gupta
(2013) 9 SCC 1 : [2013] 10 SCR 937 ; Manish Goel
v. Rohini Goel (2010) 4 SCC 393 : [2010] 2 SCR 414
– referred to.
Case Law Reference
[2005] 2 Suppl. SCR 833
referred to
Para 3.1
[2006] 3 SCR 53
relied on
Para 3.1
[2006] 9
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.