Supreme Court Grants Divorce on Irretrievable Breakdown under Article 142

While hearing the appeal in divorce petition in case of Pradeep Bhardwaj vs Priya, the Supreme Court of India granted divorce to the appellant and his wife holding that the prolong seperation, other criminal proceedings and irretrievable breakdown of marriage. The case ininvolved an appeal filed by the appellant-husband, Pradeep Bhardwaj, against a Delhi High Court order, from the year 2019, which had dismissed his matrimonial appeal and refused to grant divorce to the parties.

The marriage between the appellant-husband and respondent-wife was solemnized on in the year 2008, according to Hindu rites, and a male child was born the next year. however, shortly after a year when the conflict arose the appellant-husband, in 2010, filed a divorce petition under Section 13(1)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act before the Family Court in Tis Hazari, Delhi, and sought dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty., reasoning assault and torture by respondent-wife towards appellant’s ailing mother, physically abusing the appellant, had an extra-marital relationship, and assaulted him with her brother's help.

On the other hand, the respondent-wife denined the allegations and contended that appellant failed to financially provide for her and their minor child, had abandoned them since October 2009, and that she faced constant neglect and abuse from the appellant and his family.

In 2017, the Family Court dismissed the divorce petition, holding that the appellant’s case was "uninspiring and unworthy of acceptance," and that allegations of cruelty and property transfer were unsubstantiated. While dismissing the maintanance petition the court directed the appellant-husband to pay Rs. 4,500/- per month to the respondent and child, plus Rs. 5,000/- for litigation expenses, under Sections 24 and 26 of the HMA, 1955. Aggrieved by the Family Court's dismissal and direction, the appealed was made before the High Court of Delhi, and the appellant primarily prayed for divorce on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage, citing the long period of separation and animosity.

The High Court, however, affirmed the Family Court's decision, stating that the appellant failed to prove cruelty and that granting divorce based on irretrievable breakdown "blended with cruelty" would reward the husband for abandoning his wife and minor son. The High Court dismissed the appeal and imposed costs on the respondent.

The appellant argued before the Supreme Court that the parties had separated just one year after marriage and had been living separately for over 16 years, leading to a complete cessation of cohabitation and consortium, rendering the marriage defunct. That the appellant highlighted that he and his family had been acquitted in criminal proceedings initiated by the respondent under Sections 498A/406/34 of IPC and It was further contended that reconciliation was impossible, and mediation efforts had failed. The appellant submitted that the case squarely fell within the scope of "irretrievable breakdown of marriage" as laid down by the Supreme Court in various judgments, including Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan. However, the Respondent-wife contented against the divorce basing on the finds of the High Court and Family Court. However, she pointed towards the appellant's fault saying that he had "inconsiderately and inhumanely" denied paternity of the child, showing his lack of concern for their well-being and requested the Apex Court for enhancement of the maintenance amount awarded under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

The Supreme Court considered two main factors:

Firstly, the appellant-husband and his family got acquitted in the cruelty case. Secondly, it is an admitted fact that the parties had been living separately for about sixteen years. Considering these two factors, the Apex Court emphasized that the marriage is rooted in dignity, mutual respect, and shared companionship, and when it is lost, like "irreparably lost" then forcing a couple to remain legally bound serves no beneficial purpose. Citing its earlier Judgment in case Amutha v. A.R. Subramaniam, the Apex Court reiterated that the "welfare and dignity of both the spouses must be prioritized" and that "compelling a dead marriage to continue only perpetuates mental agony and societal burden".

Supreme Court further observed that due to "complete detachment and the prolonged estrangement," there had been an irretrievable breakdown of the marital bond, which could not be mended. Thus, the Apex Court found it "clear as a day that in the case at hand, the continuance of marriage shall only fuel animosity and litigation between the parties," which contradicted the ethos of matrimonial harmony.

Consequently, the Supreme Court believed it was in the best interest of both parties and their minor child that they be allowed to lead their lives independently and peacefully, free from prolonged and futile legal battles. The Court found it a fit case to exercise its power under Article 142 of the Constitution and granted the relief of divorce on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage. Thus, the Apex Court granted divorce, dissolving the marriage and enhance the monthly maintenance to Rs. 15,000/- per month in favour of the respondent and their minor son.

Coram: Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta.