With the government set to reintroduce the marriage laws amendment bill in the Lok Sabha to amend the Hindu Marriage Act and the Special Marriage Act to make irretrievable breakdown of marriage a ground for divorce, the Supreme Court has urged a rethink if it was an expedient ground for untying the matrimonial knot.
"It is highly debatable whether, in the Indian situation, where there is rampant oppression of women, such a ground would at all be expedient," said the bench of Justice Vikramajit Sen and Justice Prafulla C. Pant in a recent judgment.
The court hoped that this will be considered by the Lok Sabha.
The Marriage Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2013 that was passed by the Rajya Sabha lapsed before it could be considered by the Lok Sabha, as the lower house was dissolved upon completion of its term and general elections were held.
The court said this while restricting its examination of a divorce plea by K. Srinivas on the ground of alleged cruelty by his wife K. Sunita under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
Srinivas also raised the issue of irretrievable breakdown of the marriage as a ground for dissolution of the marriage.
After the wife left her matrimonial home on June 30, 1995, the husband filed a divorce suit on July 14, 1995 on the ground of cruelty as well as irretrievable breakdown of marriage. The wife retaliated by filing a criminal complaint against her husband and seven of his family members under various provisions of IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act. The husband and his family members were arrested and jailed.
A Hyderabad court on June 30, 2000, acquitted the husband and his family members of the charges leveled against them by the wife. Another family court granted divorce to the husband on December 30, 1999 on grounds of cruelty as also irretrievable breakdown of marriage. But the HC, on the woman's appeal, set aside the divorce decree.
On the woman's statement to police on the complaint lodged by her against her husband and his relatives, an apex court bench of justices Vikramjit Sen and PC Pant said, "This is clearly indicative of the fact that the criminal complaint was a contrived afterthought. We affirm the view of the HC that the criminal complaint was 'ill advised'."
The judgment, authored by Justice Sen, added. "In these circumstances, the HC ought to have concluded that the wife knowingly and intentionally filed a false complaint, calculated to embarrass and incarcerate the husband and seven members of his family and that such conduct unquestionably constitutes cruelty as postulated under Section 13(1)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act. In any event, both parties were fully aware of this facet of cruelty which was allegedly suffered by the husband."
Though the court granted divorce, it did so on the ground of cruelty to husband and not on irretrievable breakdown of marriage, a ground which was coined by the apex court in K Srinivas Rao judgment last year.
Speaking for the bench, Justice Sen said: "... if this ground (cruelty) is successfully substantiated by the petitioner (Srinivas), we need not delve any further i.e. whether a marriage can be dissolved by the trial court or the high court on the premise that the marriage has irretrievably broken down..."
Restricting the examination of the divorce plea to cruelty only, the court said irretrievable breakdown of marriage as a ground for divorce "has not found statutory acceptance till date".
"Under Article 142 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court has plenary powers to pass such decree or make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any case or order pending before it. This power has not been bestowed by our Constitution on any other Court.
"It is for these reasons that we have confined arguments only to the aspect of whether the filing of a false criminal complaint sufficiently proves matrimonial cruelty as would entitle the injured party to claim dissolution of marriage," the court said.
It said the Law Commission in its reports in 1978 and 2009 recommended the introduction of irretrievable breakdown of marriage as a ground for its dissolution, and the amendment bill has received the assent of the Rajya Sabha.
In an apparent caution, the court said it was "highly debatable whether, in the Indian situation, where there is rampant oppression of women, such a ground would at all be expedient".
However, in the instant case, the court granted divorce to Srinivas saying the complaint filed by Sunita was thrown out by the Hyderabad Mahila Court June 30, 2000 and the said order has attained finality.
Even before the complaint was declined by the Mahila Court, the Hyderabad Family Court had Dec 30, 1999 granted Srinivas divorce on the grounds of cruelty.
The court also said filing of a false complaint by either spouse amounted to matrimonial cruelty, and it would entitle the other spouse to claim divorce.
Article referred: http://www.eni.network24.co/india/irretrievable-breakdown-of-marriage-debatable-ground-for-divorce-sc-23888_2
"It is highly debatable whether, in the Indian situation, where there is rampant oppression of women, such a ground would at all be expedient," said the bench of Justice Vikramajit Sen and Justice Prafulla C. Pant in a recent judgment.
The court hoped that this will be considered by the Lok Sabha.
The Marriage Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2013 that was passed by the Rajya Sabha lapsed before it could be considered by the Lok Sabha, as the lower house was dissolved upon completion of its term and general elections were held.
The court said this while restricting its examination of a divorce plea by K. Srinivas on the ground of alleged cruelty by his wife K. Sunita under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
Srinivas also raised the issue of irretrievable breakdown of the marriage as a ground for dissolution of the marriage.
After the wife left her matrimonial home on June 30, 1995, the husband filed a divorce suit on July 14, 1995 on the ground of cruelty as well as irretrievable breakdown of marriage. The wife retaliated by filing a criminal complaint against her husband and seven of his family members under various provisions of IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act. The husband and his family members were arrested and jailed.
A Hyderabad court on June 30, 2000, acquitted the husband and his family members of the charges leveled against them by the wife. Another family court granted divorce to the husband on December 30, 1999 on grounds of cruelty as also irretrievable breakdown of marriage. But the HC, on the woman's appeal, set aside the divorce decree.
On the woman's statement to police on the complaint lodged by her against her husband and his relatives, an apex court bench of justices Vikramjit Sen and PC Pant said, "This is clearly indicative of the fact that the criminal complaint was a contrived afterthought. We affirm the view of the HC that the criminal complaint was 'ill advised'."
The judgment, authored by Justice Sen, added. "In these circumstances, the HC ought to have concluded that the wife knowingly and intentionally filed a false complaint, calculated to embarrass and incarcerate the husband and seven members of his family and that such conduct unquestionably constitutes cruelty as postulated under Section 13(1)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act. In any event, both parties were fully aware of this facet of cruelty which was allegedly suffered by the husband."
Though the court granted divorce, it did so on the ground of cruelty to husband and not on irretrievable breakdown of marriage, a ground which was coined by the apex court in K Srinivas Rao judgment last year.
Restricting the examination of the divorce plea to cruelty only, the court said irretrievable breakdown of marriage as a ground for divorce "has not found statutory acceptance till date".
"Under Article 142 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court has plenary powers to pass such decree or make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any case or order pending before it. This power has not been bestowed by our Constitution on any other Court.
"It is for these reasons that we have confined arguments only to the aspect of whether the filing of a false criminal complaint sufficiently proves matrimonial cruelty as would entitle the injured party to claim dissolution of marriage," the court said.
It said the Law Commission in its reports in 1978 and 2009 recommended the introduction of irretrievable breakdown of marriage as a ground for its dissolution, and the amendment bill has received the assent of the Rajya Sabha.
In an apparent caution, the court said it was "highly debatable whether, in the Indian situation, where there is rampant oppression of women, such a ground would at all be expedient".
However, in the instant case, the court granted divorce to Srinivas saying the complaint filed by Sunita was thrown out by the Hyderabad Mahila Court June 30, 2000 and the said order has attained finality.
Even before the complaint was declined by the Mahila Court, the Hyderabad Family Court had Dec 30, 1999 granted Srinivas divorce on the grounds of cruelty.
The court also said filing of a false complaint by either spouse amounted to matrimonial cruelty, and it would entitle the other spouse to claim divorce.
Article referred: http://www.eni.network24.co/india/irretrievable-breakdown-of-marriage-debatable-ground-for-divorce-sc-23888_2
Comments
Post a Comment