The High Court instructed the Union of India and the Law Commission to assess the request for incorporating irretrievable breakdown of marriage as a basis for divorce within the framework of the Hindu Marriage Act.
On Thursday, the Allahabad High Court referred to love marriages as unions easily formed, noting that such relationships also easily lead to matrimonial disputes among couples.
Justices Vivek Kumar Birla and Donadi Ramesh of the division bench emphasized the necessity of updating the grounds for divorce outlined in the Hindu Marriage Act to address contemporary circumstances.
Specifically, the Court urged the Union of India to contemplate amending the Hindu Marriage Act based on observations made by the Supreme Court in 2006, which advocated for the inclusion of irretrievable breakdown of marriage as a permissible reason for divorce.
The Court noted that when the Hindu Marriage Act was introduced in 1955, the sentiments and reverence associated with marital bonds were distinct, and the current trends in marriage were unprecedented during that era.
It pointed to factors such as education, financial independence, the breakdown of caste barriers, modernization, and the influence of Western culture as driving forces behind these changes. The Court further remarked that society is progressively becoming more open and individualistic, resulting in a reduced need for emotional support.
“Whether through love marriages or arranged unions, all these factors inevitably influence the dynamics between partners. However, it is evident that every action prompts an equal reaction. Marriages entered into easily, such as love marriages, also tend to result in marital disputes between the parties, regardless of culpability. Often, neither party is willing to sustain the relationship, or one party opts to live separately,” the Court observed.
The judges emphasized that such “realities” were apparent from their experiences in adjudicating similar disputes.
“The Allahabad High Court remarked that marriages easily entered into, such as love marriages, also tend to easily lead to matrimonial disputes.”
While handling an appeal brought forth by a doctor, who has served in the Indian Army for approximately 30 years, the Court made these observations.
The appeal was against the Family Court’s decision to deny him a divorce from his wife, who is also a senior doctor. The couple, both of whom were embarking on their second marriage, tied the knot in 2007. Allegedly, the wife had abandoned the husband six years prior to his filing for divorce in 2015, citing cruelty as grounds.
However, the Family Court rejected the husband’s plea, prompting him to file an appeal before the High Court in 2019.
The wife did not appear in the case, resulting in proceedings ex parte. The husband’s primary argument before the High Court was that the prolonged absence of his wife amounted to mental cruelty.
Taking into account the arguments presented, the Court initially acknowledged that irretrievable breakdown of marriage has long been acknowledged as a valid ground for divorce by the Supreme Court.
Specifically referencing the case of Naveen Kohli Vs. Neelu Kohli, where the apex court in 2006 advocated for the inclusion of irretrievable breakdown of marriage as a divorce ground, the Court highlighted this precedent.
Nevertheless, the High Court expressed dismay that despite approximately 18 years having passed since then, no action had been taken in this regard.
The Court remarked, “On one hand, the law recognizes desertion by a petitioner for a continuous period of not less than two years immediately preceding the presentation of the petition as a valid ground for divorce.
On the other hand, it is perplexing why the ground of irretrievable breakdown is not being recognized, especially when the parties have been living separately for many years, and in some instances, for decades.”
The Court also remarked that in numerous instances, the marital relationship between spouses exists merely in name.
The Court added that due to this situation, the Supreme Court has consistently viewed the continuation of such dysfunctional marital bonds as tantamount to mental cruelty on the parties involved.
“In our view, irretrievable breakdown is an evaluation of the circumstances prevailing in the lives of the married couple, and if substantiated, would constitute mental cruelty,” it stated.
In the context of the present case, the Court noted that the wife’s prolonged absence from the husband clearly indicates her lack of interest in maintaining the marital relationship.
Concluding that the marriage had irretrievably broken down, the Court affirmed that the situation unequivocally constituted ‘mental cruelty’ towards the husband, as the marriage had become completely unviable and emotionally devoid.
“On this basis, divorce can be granted,” it declared, while allowing the appeal and decreeing divorce in favor of the husband.
Additionally, the Court instructed the Registrar (Compliance) to forward a copy of this judgment to the Secretary, Ministry of Law and Justice, Department of Legal Affairs, Government of India, and the Law Commission for their consideration, in light of the Supreme Court’s observations in the case of Naveen Kohli and other relevant judgments.
Advocates Tarun Agarwal and Pankaj Agarwal represented the appellant in court.
