The Supreme Court has observed that before a Court concludes that a marriage has irretrievably broken down due to separation, it is imperative to determine which spouse is responsible for the separation.
The Bench, comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi, set aside a judgment passed by the Uttarakhand High Court which had granted a decree of divorce to a husband on the grounds of cruelty and desertion. The Apex Court has remitted the matter back to the High Court for fresh consideration.
Case Background
The appeal arose from a matrimonial dispute. The parties were married on May 20, 2009, and a male child was born on March 7, 2010. Due to marital discord, litigation commenced shortly thereafter.
The respondent-husband initially filed Civil Suit No. 59/2010 seeking divorce on the ground of cruelty, which he subsequently withdrew. In 2013, he filed a second petition seeking divorce under Section 13(1)(i)(b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, alleging desertion.
The Trial Court dismissed the husband’s divorce petition on February 15, 2018. However, upon appeal, the Division Bench of the Uttarakhand High Court allowed the husband’s appeal vide a judgment dated September 20, 2019, dissolving the marriage. Aggrieved by this order, the appellant-wife approached the Supreme Court.
Key Legal Issues and Observations
The Supreme Court scrutinized the High Court’s reliance on the “oral narratives of the respondent” regarding alleged mental cruelty. The Apex Court noted that the High Court failed to advert to the appellant-wife’s specific plea that she had been “thrown out of the matrimonial home and was forced to live separately.”
The Supreme Court framed three specific issues that the High Court ought to have determined but failed to do so:
- Whether the appellant was thrown out of the matrimonial home or she herself voluntarily deserted the respondent?
- Whether the withdrawal of the first divorce petition, which was also based on cruelty, would bar the filing of a second petition on the same cause of action?
- Whether cruelty was committed by the respondent in not allowing the appellant to join the matrimonial home or by denying maintenance, love, and affection to the minor child?
On Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage
Addressing the modern judicial trend regarding broken marriages, the Supreme Court issued a significant caution. While acknowledging that courts often observe that long separation implies an irretrievable breakdown of marriage, the Bench held that this cannot be a presumptive conclusion without analyzing the cause of separation.
The Court observed:
“However, before jumping to such a conclusion, it is imperative upon the Family Court or the High Court to determine as to who out of the two is responsible for breaking the marital tie and forcing the other to live separately. Unless there is cogent evidence for willful desertion or refusal to cohabit and/or look after the other spouse, the finding of marriage having been broken irretrievably is likely to have devastating effects, especially on the children.”
The Bench further emphasized that arriving at such a conclusion places an “onerous duty” on the Courts to “deeply analyse the entire evidence on record, consider the social circumstances and the background of the parties, and various other factors.”
The Decision
The Supreme Court held that the High Court had not undertaken the necessary exercise to determine the root cause of the separation. Consequently, the appeal was allowed in part.
The Supreme Court set aside the impugned judgment dated September 20, 2019, and remitted the matter to the Uttarakhand High Court for fresh consideration in accordance with the law. The parties have been directed to appear before the High Court on November 24, 2025.
Case Details:
- Case Number: Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 24920 of 2019
- Bench: Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi
