The Supreme Court said that when a husband and wife hold completely opposing views and refuse to accommodate each other, the marriage itself amounts to ‘cruelty’ to both parties and becomes a valid ground for divorce.
A Bench of Justices Manmohan and Joymalya Bagchi said it is not the court’s role to decide whose view of marriage is “correct”, but to recognise that a relationship marked by mutual resentment and an unwillingness to compromise cannot survive.
“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 the court to sit in judgment over which spouse’s 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 was quoted as saying by Bar and Bench.
Bringing to an end a matrimonial dispute that had lasted for nearly 24 years, the two-judge Bench allowed the husband’s plea for divorce. The top court noted that the couple had been living separately within a year of marriage and that even mediation efforts had failed to resolve their differences.
The couple, both employees of the Life Insurance Corporation (LIC), were married in Shillong in 2000. Differences arose within a year, as the husband’s family wanted the woman to quit her job, while the wife wished to continue working, particularly to support her ailing mother and siblings.
Due to constant pressure and disagreements, the wife left the matrimonial home in 2001.
Two years later, the husband sought divorce, but the petition was dismissed as premature since the mandatory two-year separation period had not elapsed. He filed a fresh divorce plea in 2007, alleging wilful desertion by his wife.
In 2010, a trial court granted the divorce. However, in 2011, the Gauhati High Court’s Shillong Bench overturned the decree, holding that the wife had not intended to permanently forsake her husband and had left due to ill-treatment.
The high court observed that the husband had made no sincere attempt at reconciliation and appeared content with his wife’s departure, concluding that he was attempting to “take advantage of his own wrong”.
What did the Supreme Court observe finally?
The husband challenged the high court ruling before the Supreme Court in 2012. The appeal remained pending for 13 years, during which the couple continued to live separately.
The Supreme Court noted that the couple had no children, had lived apart for over two decades, and worked in the same office without interacting. Attempts at reconciliation, including court-directed mediation in 2012, failed.
The bench held that such prolonged separation itself amounted to cruelty to both parties. It clarified that the fault-based framework of the Hindu Marriage Act does not limit the court’s constitutional powers to grant divorce where the marriage has completely broken down, observing that prolonged litigation only increases emotional suffering.
Concluding that the marriage had lost all sanctity and that reconciliation was not possible, the court ruled that the irretrievably broken relationship should be formally brought to an end.
