SH. RAKESH RAMAN versus SMT. KAVITA

Citation: [2023] 3 S.C.R. 552 · Decided: 26-04-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SUDHANSHU DHULIA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
552
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 3 S.C.R.
[2023] 3 S.C.R. 552
552
SH. RAKESH RAMAN
v.
SMT. KAVITA
(Civil Appeal No. 2012 of 2013)
APRIL 26, 2023
[SUDHANSHU DHULIA AND J. B. PARDIWALA, JJ.]
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955: s. 13(1)(ia) and (ib) – Divorce –
Grounds of cruelty and desertion – Marital discord between the
parties – Petition for dissolution of marriage by the husband on the
ground that the wife treated him with cruelty and deserted him,that
there was no co-habitation between the parties, and that the wife
had filed multiple false and frivolous criminal cases against him –
Trial court passed a decree of divorce holding that the wife had
deserted the husband and had meted out cruel behaviour against
him – However, the High Court set aside the order – On appeal,
held: There are bitter allegations of cruelty and desertion from both
the sides, the marital relationship has broken down irretrievably,
there is a long separation of 25 years, absence of cohabitation, no
child out of the wedlock, with multiple court cases between the
parties – Repeated efforts for reconciliation by the Courts has failed
– Marital relationship which has only become more bitter and
acrimonious over the years, does nothing but inflicts cruelty on
both the sides – To keep the façade of this broken marriage alive
would be doing injustice to both the parties – Marriage being
irretrievably broken down spells cruelty, thus, a ground for
dissolution of marriage u/s.13(1)(ia) – Judgement by the High Court
set aside and decree of divorce is granted.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The husband and wife, have been living
separately since the last 25 years. There is no child out of the
wedlock. There are bitter allegations of cruelty and desertion
from both the sides and multiple litigations between the two in
the last more than 25 years. This embittered relationship between
the appellant and the respondent which has not witnessed any
moment of peace for the last 25 years is a marital relationship
only on paper. The fact is that this relationship has broken down
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
553
irretrievably long back. Other aspect to be considered is the fact
that for the last 25 years the appellant and respondent, are living
separately, and have not cohabitated. There is absolutely no scope
of reconciliation between the parties. There is in fact no bond
between the two and as the Law Commission in its 71st report
said about such a marriage, which is a marriage which has de
facto broken down, and only needs a de jure recognition by the
law. The same was reiterated by the Law Commission in its 217th
report. [Paras 10, 12][558-A-B, E-F]
1.2 The view taken by the High Court that mere filing of
criminal cases by the wife does not constitute cruelty as what has
also to be seen are the circumstances under which cases were
filed, is a finding is not to be disregarded totally, in fact as a pure
proposition of law it may be correct, but then the entire facts of
the case are to be closely examined. When the facts as they exist
are taken into consideration, the continuation of this marriage
would mean continuation of cruelty, which each one inflicts on
the other. Irretrievable breakdown of a marriage may not be a
ground for dissolution of marriage, under the Hindu Marriage
Act, but cruelty is. A marriage can be dissolved by a decree of
divorce, inter alia, on the ground when the other party “has, after
the solemnization of the marriage treated the petitioner with
cruelty”. A marital relationship which has only become more bitter
and acrimonious over the years, does nothing but inflicts cruelty
on both the sides. To keep the façade of this broken marriage
alive would be doing injustice to both the parties. A marriage
which has broken down irretrievably, spells cruelty to both the
parties, as in such a relationship each party is treating the other
with cruelty. It is therefore a ground for dissolution of marriage
under Section 13(1)(ia). [Para 16][560-D-G]
1.3 The matrimonial bond is completely broken and is
beyond repair. This relationship must end as its continuation is
causing cruelty on both the sides. The long separation and absence
of cohabitation and the complete breakdown of all meaningful
bonds and the existing bitterness between the two, has to be
read as cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the 1955 Act. Therefore,
in a given case, where the marital relationship has broken down
SH. RAKESH RAMAN v. SMT. KAVITA
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
554
SUPREME COURT RE

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