The present Appeal before the Supreme Court assailed the correctness of the order passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, which upheld the correctness of an order passed by the Family Court. The Family Court dismissed a petition instituted by the Appellant herein under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking dissolution of marriage by way of a decree of divorce.
The Appellant & the Respondent were married in 1991. It was alleged that the Wife ill-treated the Husband, and constantly acted against the Husband at the behest of her parents. On the other hand, the Wife alleged cruelty and torture at the hands of the Husband. The parties were adamant on parting ways citing irretrievable breakdown of marriage and submitted that the marriage be dissolved on the aforesaid ground.
The parties relied on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan 2023 SCC OnLine SC 544., wherein it was observed that a marriage may be dissolved on the ground of an irretrievable breakdown in exercise of the jurisdiction of SC under Article 142(1) of the Constitution of India. The Supreme Court delineated various factor(s) to be considered by this Court whilst exercising such jurisdiction which included., Court should be fully convinced and satisfied that the marriage is totally unworkable, emotionally dead and beyond salvation and, therefore, dissolution of marriage is the right solution and the only way forward, the marriage has irretrievably broken down is to be factually determined and firmly established. It includes:
1. Period of time the parties had cohabited after marriage
2.When the parties had last cohabited
3. The nature of allegations made by the parties against each other and their family members
4. The orders passed in the legal proceedings from time to time
5. Cumulative impact on the personal relationship;
6. Whether, and how many attempts were made to settle the disputes by intervention of the court or through mediation, and when the last attempt was made, etc.
7. The period of separation should be sufficiently long, and anything above six years or more would be a relevant factor.
The Supreme Court noted that these facts have to be evaluated keeping in view the economic and social status of the parties, including their educational qualifications, whether the parties have any children, their age, educational qualification, and whether the other spouse and children are dependent, in which event how and in what manner the party seeking divorce intends to take care and provide for the spouse or the children. Question of custody and welfare of minor children, provision for fair and adequate alimony for the wife, and economic rights of the children and other pending matters, if any, are relevant considerations.).
The factors stated are to be taken as codified in nature and are rather illustrative and worthy of consideration as mentioned by the SC in the Shilpa Sailesh (Supra). In the current case SC believed that the prima – facie had satisfied them of the parameters. The undisputed fact is that the parties separated 22 (twenty-two) years ago, having cohabited last in January 2002. The children are now majors and gainfully employed. Keeping in view the circumstances, the SC established that the marriage between the parties has broken down and that there is no possibility that the parties would cohabit together in the future & hence the appeal was allowed.