2009 (2) TMI 818 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether irretrievable breakdown of the marriage is provided by the legislature for granting a decree of divorce?

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against judgment of High Court dismissing husband's appeal
- Allegations of cruelty and counter-allegations in marriage
- Examination of evidence by trial court
- High Court's observation on cruelty and irretrievable breakdown of marriage
- Argument for dissolution of marriage based on irretrievable breakdown
- Analysis of provisions of Hindu Marriage Act on divorce grounds
- Court's stance on irretrievable breakdown as a ground for divorce
- Differentiating judicial verdict and legislative function
- Consideration of mutual consent for divorce

Analysis:
The Supreme Court heard an appeal against the judgment of the High Court that dismissed the husband's appeal. The case involved allegations of cruelty and counter-allegations in the marriage. The appellant claimed that the respondent behaved cruelly and avoided staying in the matrimonial home. However, the respondent alleged physical abuse and mistreatment by the appellant and his family members. The trial court concluded that the respondent had been treated cruelly and dismissed the husband's claims of cruelty.

The High Court upheld the trial court's decision, emphasizing that the evidence did not support the husband's allegations of cruelty. The court noted that the wife had demonstrated suffering at the hands of the husband rather than the other way around. The appellant argued for the dissolution of the marriage based on irretrievable breakdown, which is not explicitly mentioned as a ground for divorce in Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, which lists grounds like cruelty, adultery, and desertion.

The Supreme Court clarified that adding irretrievable breakdown as a ground for divorce would be amending the Act, a function reserved for the legislature. The Court highlighted that previous cases dissolving marriages on this ground did not consider this legal position and were not precedents. The Court emphasized that only the Parliament could enact or amend laws, not the judiciary. While mutual consent could have led to divorce under Section 13B of the Act, the respondent was not agreeable in this case.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, stating that granting divorce based on irretrievable breakdown was beyond its jurisdiction and required legislative action. The Court's decision was based on the legal framework provided by the Hindu Marriage Act and the separation of powers between the judiciary and the legislature.