A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE
This case centers on the dissolution of marriage on the grounds of irretrievable breakdown. The Supreme Court of India granted a decree of divorce under Article 142(1) of the Constitution due to prolonged separation, unresponsiveness by the respondent to reconciliation efforts, and failure to engage with legal proceedings. The court cited precedents, including Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan and Sukhendu Das v. Rita Mukherjee, to emphasize that irretrievable breakdown can be grounds for divorce if continuing the marriage serves no meaningful purpose. The court underscored that powers under Article 142 are discretionary and are to be used to achieve “complete justice.”
Keywords: Irretrievable breakdown of marriage, matrimonial discord, non-appearance, dissolution of marriage, Article 142(1) Constitution.
B) CASE DETAILS
- Judgment Cause Title: Prakashchandra Joshi v. Kuntal Prakashchandra Joshi @ Kuntal Visanji Shah
- Case Number: Civil Appeal No. 934 of 2024
- Judgment Date: 24 January 2024
- Court: Supreme Court of India
- Quorum: B.R. Gavai, Prashant Kumar Mishra, JJ.
- Author: Prashant Kumar Mishra, J.
- Citation: [2024] 1 S.C.R. 697; 2024 INSC 55
- Legal Provisions Involved: Article 142(1) of the Constitution of India, Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act
- Judgments Overruled: None
- Law Subjects Involved: Family Law, Constitutional Law
C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGMENT
The appellant, Prakashchandra Joshi, approached the court seeking dissolution of marriage based on irretrievable breakdown after a prolonged period of separation from the respondent, Kuntal Prakashchandra Joshi. The couple had experienced an extended period of discord, primarily due to incompatible expectations regarding living arrangements and lifestyle. With unsuccessful reconciliation attempts and non-engagement by the respondent in multiple legal proceedings, the appellant invoked the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 142, contending that the marriage had reached a point beyond salvage.
D) FACTS OF THE CASE
The marriage between Prakashchandra and Kuntal took place on 5 January 2004, after an eight-year relationship. They later moved to Canada for better opportunities, where they enjoyed a stable life until the appellant faced severe health issues and lost his job. The family then returned to India in January 2011. A rift developed when the respondent insisted on returning to Canada, while the appellant, owing to health concerns, chose to remain in India. This led to their final separation in February 2011.
Subsequently, the respondent left for Canada with their minor son and did not return to resume matrimonial life. The appellant, in an attempt to reconcile, filed for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act but withdrew it when the respondent remained unresponsive. Following this, he filed for divorce on grounds of cruelty and desertion, which were dismissed by the Family Court and later by the High Court, which held that no substantial evidence of cruelty or desertion had been proven.
E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED
- Whether prolonged separation and non-engagement by the respondent could constitute grounds for divorce on irretrievable breakdown.
- Whether the Supreme Court, under Article 142, can grant divorce despite the absence of conclusive evidence of cruelty or desertion.
F) PETITIONER/APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS
The appellant argued that the respondent’s refusal to return despite multiple reconciliatory efforts, her absence from legal proceedings, and the 13-year separation constituted an irretrievable breakdown of the marriage. Relying on cases such as Sukhendu Das v. Rita Mukherjee (2017) and Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh (2007), the appellant emphasized that continuing the marriage served no purpose. Additionally, the appellant highlighted that Article 142 empowered the court to dissolve the marriage when it was beyond repair, urging for a decree of divorce to achieve complete justice.
G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS
The respondent did not participate in any proceedings, including the initial restitution petition, divorce proceedings, or appeals. Her lack of response was construed as a refusal to engage in marital reconciliation or legal discourse.
H) JUDGMENT
a. RATIO DECIDENDI
The Supreme Court held that the prolonged separation, lack of interest by the respondent, and failure to engage in court proceedings indicated an irretrievable breakdown of marriage. Invoking Article 142, the court found that continuing the marital relationship would serve no purpose and granted a decree of divorce, aligning with principles laid out in Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan and other relevant cases. The judgment noted that the power under Article 142 is to be exercised cautiously but can be invoked in situations where conventional legal remedies are inadequate.
b. OBITER DICTA
The court noted that while Article 142 should be used sparingly, cases of prolonged separation and non-cooperation warrant judicial intervention to dissolve a marriage in the interest of justice.
c. GUIDELINES
- Irretrievable Breakdown: When marital discord persists over an extended period without hope of reconciliation, courts may consider dissolution under Article 142.
- Non-cooperation: Consistent non-appearance by one spouse may indicate an unwillingness to continue the marriage, justifying divorce.
- Article 142 Application: Courts can apply Article 142 when dissolution aligns with the purpose of justice, even absent explicit statutory grounds like cruelty or desertion.
I) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS
This case exemplifies the Supreme Court’s willingness to exercise discretionary powers under Article 142 to provide relief in unique matrimonial disputes where traditional legal avenues prove inadequate. By granting a decree based on irretrievable breakdown, the court reinforces that the institution of marriage cannot be sustained in cases devoid of mutual intent and cooperation. This judgment not only underscores judicial flexibility but also reaffirms the need to prioritize individual rights within the bounds of marital relationships.
J) REFERENCES
Important Cases Referred:
- Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan, [2023] 5 SCR 165
- Sukhendu Das v. Rita Mukherjee, (2017) 9 SCC 632
- Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh, [2007] 4 SCR 428
Important Statutes Referred:
- Constitution of India – Article 142
- Hindu Marriage Act – Section 9
