SIVASANKARAN versus SANTHIMEENAL

Citation: [2021] 6 S.C.R. 169 · Decided: 13-09-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SANJAY KISHAN KAUL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 5 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
169
SIVASANKARAN
v.
SANTHIMEENAL
(Civil Appeal Nos. 4984-4985 of 2021)
SEPTEMBER 13, 2021
[SANJAY KISHAN KAUL AND HRISHIKESH ROY, JJ.]
Hindu Law – Divorce – Cruelty – Subsequent conduct –
Continued allegations and litigative proceedings – Irretrievable
breakdown of marriage – Parties living separately from the date
of marriage for almost 20 years – Appellant-husband had
remarried after grant of divorce by trial court – Divorce decree
set aside by appellate court – Held: The marriage never took off
from the first day and was never consummated – Continuing acts
of respondent-wife amounted to cruelty even if the same had not
arisen as a cause prior to institution of the divorce petition – Her
conduct showed disintegration of marital unity and thus
disintegration of the marriage – All mediation efforts had failed –
Divorce granted not only in exercise of powers u/Art. 142 of the
Constitution on account of irretrievable breakdown of marriage,
but also on account of cruelty u/s.13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage
Act, 1955 in light of subsequent conduct of respondent-wife during
pendency of judicial proceedings at various stages – Hindu
Marriage Act, 1955 – s.13(1)(i-a) – Constitution of India, 1950 –
Art. 142.
Hindu Law – Divorce – Cruelty – Mental cruelty – Wife filing
multiple cases in courts against the husband – Held: Such repeated
filing of cases itself amounts to mental cruelty.
Hindu Law – Divorce – Irretrievable breakdown of marriage
as a ground for divorce – Legislature’s reluctance to introduce
irretrievable breakdown as a ground for divorce, even though there
may have been a change in social norms over a period of time –
In appropriate cases, Supreme Court has granted decrees of
divorce exercising its unique jurisdiction u/Art.142 of the
Constitution, to do complete justice between the parties –
Constitution of India, 1950 – Art. 142.
   [2021] 6 S.C.R. 169
169
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
170
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 6 S.C.R.
Disposing of the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1. Irretrievable breakdown of marriage as a
ground for divorce.
In appropriate cases, this Court has granted decrees of
divorce exercising its unique jurisdiction under Article 142 of
the Constitution, to do complete justice between the parties.
Such a course is being followed in varied kinds of cases, for
instance where there are inter se allegations between the parties,
in order to put a quietus to the matter, the parties withdraw
these allegations and by mutual consent, this court itself grants
divorce. There are also cases where the parties accept that there
is an irretrievable breakdown of marriage and themselves
request for a decree of divorce. One of the more difficult
situations is where, in the opinion of the court, there is
irretrievable breakdown of marriage but only one of the parties
is willing to acknowledge the same and accept divorce on that
account, while the other side seeks to oppose it even if it means
carrying on with the marriage. [Para 5][177-D-F]
1.2. The ground which is often taken to oppose such a
decree of divorce, apart from the absence of legislative mandate,
is that the very institution of marriage is distinctly understood
in diferent countries. Under the Hindu Law, it is sacramental in
character and is supposed to be an eternal union of two people
- society at large does not accept divorce, given the heightened
importance of marriage as a social institution in India. Or at
least, it is far more difficult for women to retain social acceptance
after a decree of divorce. This, coupled with the law’s failure to
guarantee economic and financial security to women in the event
of a breakdown of marriage; is stated to be the reason for the
legislature’s reluctance to introduce irretrievable breakdown as
a ground for divorce – even though there may have been a
change in social norms over a period of time. Not all persons
come from the same social background, and having a uniform
legislative enactment is thus, stated to be difficult. It is in these
circumstances that this court has been exercising its jurisdiction,
despite such reservations, under Article 142 of the Constitution.
[Para 6][177-G-H; 178-A-B]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
171
2.1. Pendency of reference before Constitution Bench:
There is a reference to a Constitution Bench of this Court
in Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan, order dated 29-06-2016
[T.P.(C) No.1118/2014] on two grounds – (a) what could be the
broad parameters for exercise of powers under Article 142 of
t

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