The Supreme Court said that when a husband and wife hold diametrically opposed views and refuse to accommodate each other, the marriage itself amounts to “cruelty” to both parties and becomes a valid ground for divorce.
A Bench of Justices Manmohan and Joymalya Bagchi said it is not the court’s role to decide whose view of marriage is “correct”, but to recognize that a relationship marked by mutual resentment and unwillingness to compromise cannot survive.
“Consequently, their conduct amounts to mutual cruelty. This court is of the view that in matrimonial matters involving two individuals, it is not for society or the court to decide which husband’s approach is right or wrong. It is their strongly held views and their refusal to accommodate each other that amounts to mutual cruelty,” the court said, according to the Bar and Bench.
Ending a matrimonial dispute that had lasted for almost 24 years, a two-judge Bench granted the husband’s divorce petition. The Supreme Court noted that the couple had been living separately within a year of their marriage and that even mediation efforts had failed to resolve their disputes.
The couple, both employees of Life Insurance Corporation (LIC), were married in Shillong in 2000. Differences arose within a year as the husband’s family wanted the wife to leave work, while the wife wished to continue working, especially to support her ailing mother and siblings.
Due to constant pressure and disagreements, the wife left the matrimonial home in 2001.
Two years later, the husband filed for divorce, but the petition was rejected as premature because the mandatory two-year separation had not yet expired. In 2007, he filed for a new divorce, claiming that his wife had intentionally left him.
In 2010, the court decided on a divorce. However, in 2011, the Gauhati High Court Shillong Bench set aside the decree, saying that the wife had no intention of leaving her husband permanently and had left due to ill-treatment.
The High Court noted that the husband had made no sincere attempt at reconciliation and appeared to be content with his wife’s departure, concluding that he was attempting to “exploit his own grievance”.
What did the Supreme Court finally draw attention to?
The husband challenged the High Court judgment in the Supreme Court in 2012. The appeal remained pending for 13 years, during which the couple continued to live separately.
The Supreme Court noted that the couple had no children, lived separately for over two decades and worked in the same office without socializing. Attempts at reconciliation, including court-directed mediation in 2012, have failed.
The bench ruled that such long separation in itself amounted to cruelty to both parties. She clarified that the fault-based framework of the Hindu Marriage Act does not limit the constitutional powers of the court to grant divorce where the marriage has completely broken down, noting that lengthy litigation only adds to the emotional suffering.
The court concluded that the marriage had lost all sanctity and that reconciliation was not possible, and ruled that the irretrievably broken relationship should be formally terminated.
