A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

The case, Vikas Kanaujia v. Sarita, examines whether the Supreme Court can dissolve a marriage under Article 142 of the Constitution due to the irretrievable breakdown of the marital relationship. The appellant-husband sought to challenge the High Court’s dismissal of his divorce petition, previously granted by the Family Court on grounds of cruelty. The Court evaluated the prolonged separation of 22 years, persistent legal battles, and irreconcilable differences, ultimately deeming it appropriate to exercise its extraordinary powers under Article 142 to dissolve the marriage and grant the decree of divorce.

Keywords: Irretrievable breakdown of marriage, Article 142, cruelty, divorce, constitutional powers.

B) CASE DETAILS

• Judgment Cause Title: Vikas Kanaujia v. Sarita
• Case Number: Civil Appeal No. 7380 of 2024
• Judgment Date: July 10, 2024
• Court: Supreme Court of India
• Quorum: Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma
• Author: Justice Vikram Nath
• Citation: [2024] 7 S.C.R. 933 : 2024 INSC 517
• Legal Provisions Involved:
  • Article 142 of the Constitution of India
  • Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
  • Sections 498A, 406, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
• Judgments Overruled: High Court of Allahabad’s decision in First Appeal No. 31 of 2007.
• Related Law Subjects: Constitutional Law, Family Law, and Criminal Law.

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGMENT

The dispute emerged from a matrimonial breakdown between the appellant, Dr. Vikas Kanaujia, and the respondent, Dr. Sarita, who married in 2002 but spent only 43 days living together. Continuous legal conflicts between the parties, including allegations of dowry harassment and maintenance claims, exacerbated their estrangement. The appellant’s petition for divorce was granted by the Family Court but overturned by the High Court, prompting this appeal before the Supreme Court.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

• The parties were married on February 20, 2002, but cohabited for only 43 days over a 22-year period.
• The appellant filed a restitution of conjugal rights petition, later withdrawn, and eventually sought divorce on grounds of cruelty.
• The respondent alleged dowry demands and filed multiple criminal complaints under Sections 498A, 406, and 34 of the IPC.
• Family members of the appellant faced arrest and subsequent acquittals in criminal proceedings.
• The Family Court granted divorce in 2006, citing cruelty. However, the High Court reversed this decision in 2019, leading to the present appeal.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

• Whether the marriage qualifies as an irretrievable breakdown, justifying dissolution under Article 142.
• Whether the allegations of cruelty against the respondent were sufficiently proven to uphold the divorce decree.

F) PETITIONER/APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

• The appellant argued that the marriage was devoid of any substance, evidenced by the prolonged separation and hostile legal battles.
• He highlighted the respondent’s false criminal allegations and disruptive actions, including workplace disturbances and harassment, which constituted mental cruelty.
• He contended that the respondent’s claim of willingness to reconcile was insincere and aimed to delay proceedings.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

• The respondent opposed the divorce, asserting her willingness to cohabit and alleging that the appellant and his family sought to remarry him for dowry.
• She argued that the appellant’s refusal to reconcile and fulfill marital obligations was the real reason for the separation.

H) RELATED LEGAL PROVISIONS

• Article 142 of the Constitution of India: Empowers the Supreme Court to pass any decree necessary for complete justice.
• Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955: Grounds for dissolution of marriage, including cruelty.
• Sections 498A, 406, and 34 of IPC: Address cruelty, criminal breach of trust, and common intent in matrimonial contexts.

I) JUDGMENT

a. Ratio Decidendi

• The marriage had irretrievably broken down, demonstrated by prolonged separation, failed reconciliation efforts, and consistent legal disputes.
• The respondent’s actions, including baseless criminal complaints and workplace disruptions, constituted cruelty.

b. Obiter Dicta

• The Court emphasized the importance of granting relief under Article 142 in cases where legal remedies fail to resolve human suffering caused by dysfunctional marriages.

c. Guidelines

• Exercise of Article 142: The Court reiterated that it has discretionary power to dissolve marriages that have irretrievably broken down, even against one party’s objection.
• Assessment of Cruelty: False accusations and public harassment can qualify as cruelty under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act.

J) REFERENCES

a. Important Cases Referred

• Shilpa Shailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan, [2023] 5 SCR 165
• Rajib Kumar Roy v. Sushmita Saha, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1221
• Rakesh Raman v. Kavita, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 497

b. Important Statutes Referred

• Constitution of India, Article 142
• Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Section 13
• Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 498A, 406, and 34