Source: Supreme Court  

Why in News? 

The Supreme Court recently highlighted a case where the Family Court granted a divorce decree to a husband who was solely responsible for the marital breakdown. Despite the wife's appeal challenging the reduction of permanent alimony from Rs. 25 lakhs to Rs. 20 lakhs by the High Court, the Supreme Court emphasized that the husband should not benefit from the dissolution of the marriage he caused. 

• The Court noted that a marriage's breakdown cannot be used advantageously by the party responsible for it. 
• Justice Surya Kant and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan held in the matter of Prabhavathi@ Prabhamani v. Lakshmeesha M.C. 

What was the Background of Prabhavathi@ Prabhamani v. Lakshmeesha M.C Case? 

• The parties in this case were married on 10th November 1991. 
• A son was born from their marriage on 20th August 1992. 
• The husband allegedly deserted the wife shortly after the child's birth in 1992. 
• In 2002, the husband filed a petition seeking divorce on the grounds of cruelty. 
• The Family Court granted a divorce decree on 3rd August 2006. 
•  The wife appealed this decision, and the High Court set aside the decree on 26th August 2010, remanding the case to the Family Court. 
• The Family Court again granted a divorce decree on 21st February 2011, this time on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage. 
• The wife appealed this second decree, and the High Court set it aside on 29th November 2013, remanding the case back to the Family Court. 
• On 12th February 2016, the Family Court granted a third divorce decree, this time with a provision for permanent alimony of Rs. 2500,000 (twenty-five lakhs) to be paid to the wife. 
• The wife challenged this third decree before the High Court. 
• The High Court dismissed her appeal and further reduced the permanent alimony to Rs. 20,00,000 (twenty lakhs), despite no appeal being filed by the husband challenging the alimony amount. 
• The wife subsequently appealed this decision to the Supreme Court. 
• Throughout this period, the husband allegedly did not provide financial support for his son's education or future. 
• The husband's mother has been staying with the wife and has supported her position against her son (the husband). 
• The parties have been living separately since approximately 1992. 

What were the Court’s Observations?

• The Court stated that the concept of irretrievable breakdown of marriage cannot be used to the advantage of a party who is solely responsible for damaging the marital relationship. 
• The Court noted that the respondent (husband) had subjected the appellant to extreme cruelty over the years. 
• It was observed that the respondent never came forward to assist in securing a better future for his son or offered to pay for his education. 
• The Court criticized the mechanical manner in which the Family Court repeatedly passed divorce decrees against the appellant. 
• The Court suggested that the Family Court's actions exhibited a lack of sensitivity and potentially indicated a hidden prejudice against the appellant. 
• The Court opined that lower courts should not have accorded any premium to the respondent's own misdemeanors. 

What is the Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage? 

• The irretrievable breakdown of marriage is a situation in which the husband and wife have been living separately for a considerable period and there is absolutely no chance of them living together again.   
• It means a marriage has no scope to be reconciled and if reconciled and divorce not granted then it will amount to cruelty. 
• Irretrievable breakdown of marriage is not explicitly recognized as a ground for divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act,1955(HMA). 
• This concept was originated in New Zealand in 1921 through the historical decision in Lodder v. Lodde.   
• The concept was first acknowledged by the Supreme Court in Saroj Rani v. Sudarshan Kumar Chadha (1984) suggesting that divorce may be granted when a marriage has broken down beyond repair. 
• However, subsequent cases like Amarendra N. Chatterjee v. Smt. Kalpana Chatterjee (2022) clarified that courts cannot grant divorce solely on this ground due to lack of statutory provision. 
•  In Apurba Mohan Ghosh v. Manashi Ghosh (1988) the court held that relief can only be granted on statutory grounds mentioned in the Act, as per Section 23. 
•  V. Bhagat v. D. Bhagat (1993) affirmed that irretrievable breakdown alone is not a ground for divorce but may be considered when scrutinizing evidence for statutory grounds. 
•  The Law Commission has proposed including irretrievable breakdown as a ground for divorce, but the legislature has not adopted this recommendation. 
•  In Ms. Jorden Diengdeh v. S.S. Chopra (1985) the Supreme Court recommended comprehensive reform of marriage laws, including introducing irretrievable breakdown as a divorce ground. 
• Justice V.R Krishna Iyer explained the concept as recognizing the factual breakdown of a marriage when incompatibility becomes insurmountable. 
• Currently, courts may consider irretrievable breakdown as a factor but cannot grant divorce solely on this basis without meeting other statutory requirements. 

What is Irretrievable Breakdown Theory? 

• An irretrievable breakdown of marriage is defined as a failure in the matrimonial relationship where no reasonable probability remains for the spouses to live together as husband and wife. 
• There is currently no explicit legislative provision in India relating to this theory of divorce. 
• The Supreme Court has evolved grounds for granting divorce based on irretrievable breakdown, considering factors such as: 
  • Duration of cohabitation 
  • Time since last cohabitation 
  • Allegations made by parties against each other 
  • Orders passed in legal proceedings between the parties 
  • Attempts made for dispute settlement by family 
  • Separation period exceeding 6 years 
• The Law Commission of India, in its 71st report (1978) and a 2009 report, recommended adding irretrievable breakdown as an additional ground for divorce. 
• New Zealand pioneered this concept in 1920, allowing divorce petitions based on a three-year or more separation agreement. 
• The Hindu Marriage Act 1955 (HMA) currently does not recognize irretrievable breakdown as a ground for divorce. 
• Under the HMA, divorce by mutual consent requires a joint petition, a one-year separation period, and a mandatory six-month waiting period between two motions. 
• The theory posits that when a marital relationship deteriorates beyond reconciliation, the marriage should be terminated. 
  • It argues that maintaining shared rights and responsibilities is unjustified when a marriage cannot endure. 

What is the Legal Provision of the Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage? 

• The principle has gained informal validity through its application in several judicial decisions granting divorce. 
• While not yet incorporated into the Hindu Marriage Act, it has been strongly recommended by various Law Commission Reports. 
• The Marriage Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2010 was presented in Parliament, aiming to formally introduce this ground for divorce. 
• Article 142 of the Constitution of India, 1950 empowers the Supreme Court to grant divorce on this ground using its discretionary powers. 
  • Under Article 142, the Supreme Court can consider factors such as reason for separation, duration of separation, and other relevant circumstances when granting divorce on this ground. 
  • Article 142(1) allows the Supreme Court to pass decrees or make orders necessary for doing 'complete justice' in any cause or matter. 
  • The exercise of power under Article 142(1) must be based on fundamental general and specific public policy considerations. 
• The application of this principle must align with fundamental rights, secularism, federalism, and other basic features of the Constitution. 
• The concept can be applied if there is no express pre-eminent prohibition in any substantive law against it. 
• While not statutory grounds, courts have interpreted existing grounds for divorce in light of irretrievable breakdown in certain cases.