Introduction 

• This is a landmark judgment which talks about irretrievable breakdown of marriage. 
• This judgment was delivered by a 3 judge bench comprising of Justice BN Agrawal, Justice AK Mathur and Justice Dalveer Bhandari. 

Facts  

• The appellant Naveen Kohli married Neelu Kohli on 20th November 1975. 
• Three sons were born out of their marriage. 
• The appellant constructed three factories for them and also a bungalow for all of them. 
• The case of the Appellant is that : 
  • The respondent is a bad tempered lady of rude behavior and she used to quarrel and misbehave with the Appellant and his parents. 
  • It was also his case that the respondent got transferred to herself sufficient business and property. 
  • The Appellant further alleged that he found her in a compromising position with some other person. 
  • Further he alleged that the respondent got a false first information report registered against him under Section 420, 467, 468 and 471 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). 
  • Also, cases were registered against the Appellant under Section 323, 324 of IPC. 
  • There were deep and intense feelings of revenge that the respondent bore against the Appellant. 
  • That the appellant had filed a forged complaint under Section 397/398 of Companies Act before the Company Law Board, New Delhi and in the affidavit stated that the appellant was immoral, alcoholic and having affairs with numerous girls. 
  • Further, it is the case that the respondent had filed fake cases against the appellant. 
• It is to be noted that the petition for divorce was primarily filed on the grounds of cruelty under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA). 
• Findings of Courts below: 
  • The Trial Court held that the respondent had filed a large number of cases against the appellant and had harassed and tortured him. 
  • The Trial Court held that there is no cordiality left between the parties and there is no possibility of them living together. 
  •  Thus, the Trial Court held that there is no alternative but to dissolve the marriage between the parties. 
  • The Appeal was filed before the High Court wherein the Court allowed the appeal and the judgment of the Trial Court was set aside.  

Issue Involved 

• What would constitute cruelty under HMA? 
• Whether the marriage can be dissolved on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage in the present facts?  

Observations 

• With Respect to Issue (i): 
  • The Court first of all discussed what would constitute cruelty under HMA.  
    • The ground of divorce was added by way of amendment by 1976 Amendment. 
    • The Court in the case of NG Dastane v. S Dastane (1975) held that “whether the conduct charges as cruelty is of such a character as to cause in the mind of the petitioner a reasonable apprehension that it will be harmful or injurious for him to live with the respondent.” 
    • Unlike physical cruelty, mental cruelty is difficult to establish by direct evidence. Mental cruelty is a state of mind and feeling with one of the spouses due to the behaviour or behavioural pattern by the other. 
    • The Court finally held that: 
      • Cruelty is a course or conduct of one, which is adversely affecting the other. 
      • The cruelty may be mental or physical, intentional or unintentional 
      • If it is mental, the problem presents difficulties. First, the enquiry must begin as to the nature of cruel treatment, second the impact of such treatment in the mind of the spouse, whether it caused reasonable apprehension that it would be harmful or injurious to live with the other. 
      • Ultimately, it is a matter of inference to be drawn by taking into account the nature of the conduct and its effect on the complaining spouse. 
      • The conduct should however be something more serious than “ordinary wear and tear of married life”. 
• With Respect to Issue (ii): 
  • Irretrievable breakdown of marriage is not a ground for divorce under the HMA. 
  • It is for the Legislature whether to include irretrievable breakdown of marriage as a ground of divorce. 
  • Once the parties have separated and the separation has continued for a sufficient length of time and one of them has presented a petition for divorce, it can well be presumed that the marriage has broken down. 
  • Where there has been a long period of continuous separation, it may fairly be surmised that the matrimonial bond is beyond repair.  
  • The marriage becomes a fiction, though supported by a legal tie. By refusing to sever that tie the law in such cases do not serve the sanctity of marriage; on the contrary, it shows scant regard for the feelings and emotions of the parties. 
• The Supreme Court held that the decision of the High Court cannot be sustained and granted divorce to the parties.  

Conclusion 

• The Court in this case laid down a very important theory i.e. ‘irretrievable breakdown of marriage’. 
• The Court rightly held that a law of divorce based mainly on fault is inadequate to deal with a broken marriage. Thus, irretrievable breakdown of marriage is an adequate ground of divorce for parties that can no longer live together.