Denial of divorce in cases of irretrievable breakdown of marriage adds to suffering: MP High Court

Though irretrievable breakdown of marriage is not a ground for divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act, the refusal to dissolve such marriages would amount to pushing a person towards continuous pain and suffering, the Madhya Pradesh High Court observed recently.

The Division Bench of Justices Vishal Dhagat and BP Sharma said that the Court cannot shut its eyes to the practical difficulties and problems of the parties before it. It added that irretrievable breakdown of marriage in itself amounts to cruelty.

“If divorce is not granted in cases of irretrievable breakdown of marriage then it will amount to further pushing party towards continuous pain and suffering. Irretrievable breakdown of marriage is a species within genus of cruelty. Whenever, there is Irretrievable or complete breakdown of marriage then both parties are under pain and suffers day to day cruelty as they were not permitted to exercise their choices and option to choose their partners in life,” the Court said.

In 2023, a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court ruled that the apex court under Article 142 can grant divorce on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage. However, it did not extend the same power to High Courts.

The Allahabad High Court in March 2024 advocated for amending the grounds for divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act to address modern situations. The Delhi High Court in September 2023 made a similar observation, stating that because the law does not recognise irretrievable breakdown of marriage as a ground to grant divorce, couples end up warring with each other for years because they have no way of exiting the relationship.

Madhya Pradesh High Court has now revived the debate while dealing with a woman’s appeal challenging a family court’s refusal to grant her divorce. She had sought divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion.

The couple married in 2002 and have two daughters, who are in custody of the husband. The wife alleged that the husband demanded dowry and subjected her to violence. In response, the husband stated that she has already married another man without obtaining divorce. He also denied the allegations of cruelty against him, adding that she used to treat their daughters with cruelty.

In 2022, the trial court, on the basis of the woman's second marriage, had drawn a presumption that she was having an “adulterous life” and denied divorce to her.

Considering the records of the case, the High Court found that the couple had earlier filed a joint petition for divorce, but the same was withdrawn in 2015 after settlement of differences. However, it noted that the woman was allegedly driven out of her home in 2016 and thereafter she married another person. 

“There is complete breakdown of marriage between appellant and respondent. No purpose will be served if petition is dismissed on ground of fault of appellant. Appellant had faulted in doing second marriage during subsistence of first marriage,” it said.

However, it added that the validity of a second marriage was not an issue before the trial court. The issue was whether the husband had treated the wife with cruelty, it said.

The Court observed that when there is complete breakdown of marriage, both parties to a marriage are under pain. Even then one party opposes the prayer for divorce despite there being no possibility of their living together, it said. 

“Said conduct of party in deriving pleasure from difficulties and tension of other party also amounts to cruelty,” the Court added.

The Court proceeded to grant divorce to the woman on the ground that her husband was not giving her the option to live life freely according to her choice.

“Marriage dated 24.05.2002 between appellant and respondent is dissolved,” the Court thus ordered.

However, the Court also held that the woman would not be entitled to any alimony or property from her first husband.

Advocate Sanjay Gupta represented the wife.

Advocate Yashovardhan Shukla represented the husband.

[Read Judgment]