SC grants divorce to couple 22 years after they began legal battle: ‘no useful purpose served by keeping litigation pending’

The couple, who married in 2000, have been living separately since 2001 and had no children in the marriage. In 2003, the husband instituted a suit for divorce in Shillong which was dismissed as premature. He moved the court again in 2007 and was granted a divorce in 2010.  On appeal, the high court set aside the trial court order in 2011.

The husband challenged the high court order before the Supreme Court in July 2011, which came to be decided on Tuesday, after a gap of 14 years.

‘Not for society or court to sit in judgment’
Writing for the bench, Justice Manmohan said, “In the case at hand, spouses have strongly held views with regard to the approach towards matrimonial life and they have refused to accommodate each other for a long period of time. Consequently, their conduct amounts to cruelty to each other. This Court is of the view that in matrimonial matters involving two individuals, it is not for the society or for the Court to sit in judgment over which spouses’ approach is correct or not. It is their strongly held views and their refusal to accommodate each other that amounts to cruelty to one another.”

The court referred to judgements where it was held that “where there has been a long period of continuous separation, it can fairly be surmised that the matrimonial bond is beyond repair and in such cases, it would be unrealistic for the law not to take notice of that fact, and it would be harmful to society and injurious to the interests of parties.”

‘No sanctity left in the marriage’
The bench said it “is conscious of the view that approach of the Courts should be to preserve the sanctity of marriage and the Court should be reluctant to dissolve the marriage at the mere asking of one of the parties. But, in the present case, the parties have lived separately for far too long a period of time and there is no sanctity left in the marriage. Also, rapprochement is not in the realm of possibility. Grant of divorce in the present proceedings would not have a devastating effect on any third party, as there are no children from the wedlock.”

The court noted that “in exercise of power to do ‘complete justice’ under Article 142(1) of the Constitution of India, it has the discretion to dissolve the marriage on the ground of irretrievable breakdown.”