The Supreme Court refused to grant divorce to an octogenarian couple married for 60 years, in the “late evening of their lives” by rejecting the 89-year-old husband’s plea to divorce his wife and, at the same time, “respecting” the 82-year-old woman’s contention that she did not want to die a divorcee.
The apex court brought the curtains down on the 27-year-old marital discord between the two parties and said the institution of marriage occupies an important place and plays a key role in the society. It said despite the increasing trend of filing divorce proceedings in courts, the institution of marriage is still considered to be a “pious, spiritual and invaluable emotional life-net between couples in the Indian society”.
An SC bench of Justices Aniruddha Bose and Bela M Trivedi was hearing the man’s appeal against the decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, which had reversed a district court order granting divorce to him. “Irretrievable breakdown of marriage” cannot be viewed as a strait-jacket formula to always grant a divorce, the bench said.
“In our opinion, one should not be oblivious to the fact that the institution of marriage occupies an important place and plays an important role in society… It is governed not only by the letters of law but by the social norms as well. So many other relationships stem from and thrive on the matrimonial relationships in the society. Therefore, it would not be desirable to accept the formula of ‘irretrievable breakdown of marriage’ as a strait-jacket formula for the grant of relief of divorce under Article 142 of the Constitution of India,” the bench said.
The top court noted that the wife is still “ready and willing” to take care of her husband and does not wish to leave him alone at this stage of life. It also said the woman, all throughout her life, has maintained the relationship since they were married in 1963 and has taken care of their three children despite the fact that the man was hostile towards them.
“…She has also expressed her sentiments that she does not want to die with the stigma of being a ‘divorcee’ woman. In contemporary society, it may not constitute a stigma but here we are concerned with the respondent’s own sentiment,” the bench said, in its order dated October 10.
It added: “Under the circumstances, considering and respecting the sentiments of the respondent wife, the court is of the opinion that exercising the discretion in favour of the appellant (husband) under Article 142 by dissolving the marriage between parties on the ground that the marriage has irretrievably broken down, would not be doing “complete justice” to the parties, would rather be doing injustice to the respondent. In that view of the matter, we are not inclined to accept the submission of the appellant to dissolve the marriage on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage.”
What is the case?
The man is a qualified doctor and retired from the Indian Air Force. He had initiated divorce proceedings in March 1996 under the Hindu Marriage Act on grounds of ‘cruelty’ and ‘desertion’ by his wife, a retired teacher. The couple had married as per Sikh rites on March 10, 1963, at Amritsar and had three children – two daughters and one son.
The man alleged that his estranged wife had treated him cruelly and deserted him by not joining him when he was transferred to Madras (now Chennai) in January 1984 and, thereafter, not taking care of him even though he had a heart problem. He further alleged that the wife had made complaints against him to the air force authorities to malign his image, and that these were “acts of cruelty”, entitling him to a decree of divorce.
The relations soured between them when she did not join him and preferred to stay initially with her in-laws and son. The SC bench noted that despite sincere efforts by both parties, the differences and disputes could not be resolved ultimately leading the man to file divorce proceedings on March 12, 1996, before the district court.
The man submitted that the couple has been staying separately since he had filed for divorce and, the marriage having been irretrievably broken down, the SC should exercise its plenary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution and grant a decree of divorce.
The wife submitted that she was an old woman and does not want to die with the stigma of a “divorcee”. She stated that she had made all efforts to respect the sacred relationship between the parties all throughout and is still ready to look after her husband with the assistance of her son.
She submitted that a mere long period of separation could not tantamount to irretrievable breakdown of the marriage and her husband had failed to make out any ground either of ‘cruelty’ or ‘desertion’. The wife urged the SC not to interfere with the HC order.
The bench said looking how both parties are in the “late evening of their lives”, the court had expected them to sit together and explore the possibility of an amicable settlement. The effort having failed, the court decided to adjudicate the matter on merit, it said.
On the allegations of ‘cruelty’ and ‘desertion’ made by the husband, the bench said it was taking a view similar to the HC as he has failed to prove that his wife had treated him with ‘cruelty’ or had ‘deserted’ him.
(With PTI inputs)
Comments
0 comment