Signing you in

The Supreme Court has dissolved a marriage despite the wife opposing divorce, not because she wanted to save the relationship, but because she first wanted to prove in court that her husband committed adultery.

In essence, the disagreement before the court was not over whether the marriage should survive, but over how it should legally end. (ANI)Observing that a marriage existing “only on paper” serves no meaningful purpose, a bench of justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta on Wednesday dissolved the marriage, exercising its extraordinary power under Article 142 of the Constitution. The court said that the relationship between the couple had collapsed beyond repair and continuing the legal bond any further would merely prolong bitterness and litigation.

“The ties of matrimony, in every meaningful sense, have long since been severed. In such circumstances, to compel the parties to remain bound in a marriage that exists only on paper would serve no legitimate purpose,” noted the bench while invoking its extraordinary powers to grant divorce.

Also Read: Election Commission acted within powers in SIR exercise, Supreme Court says

The case arose out of a matrimonial dispute between an army officer and his wife, a dentist by profession, who married in April 2017 but separated soon thereafter amid allegations and counter-allegations.

The husband approached the Supreme Court seeking dissolution of marriage on the ground of irretrievable breakdown, pointing out that the parties had been living separately for over eight years and were locked in multiple civil and criminal proceedings with no possibility of reconciliation.

The wife, however, opposed the Supreme Court directly granting divorce. She told the court that she intended to pursue a contested divorce petition under Section 13(1)(i) of the Hindu Marriage Act on grounds of adultery and argued that the husband should not be permitted to “take advantage of his own wrongs”.

In essence, the disagreement before the court was not over whether the marriage should survive, but over how it should legally end.

Also Read: To vote is a ‘valuable constitutional right’ but not absolute: Supreme Court in SIR verdict

The bench acknowledged the wife’s stand but said the surrounding circumstances left no room for preserving the matrimonial tie.

“We are cognisant of the fact that the respondent-wife is not agreeable to the grant of divorce by this court and intends to pursue a contested petition on the ground of adultery. Nonetheless, what is evident from the record and from our interaction with the parties is that the marriage between the parties has irretrievably broken down and there is no possibility of reconciliation whatsoever,” noted the judgment.

The court took note of the prolonged separation, continuing acrimony and multiplicity of cases pending between the parties, including maintenance proceedings, domestic violence complaints and contempt petitions.

Also Read: Collegium recommends 4 chief justices, woman advocate for Supreme Court

The judgment recorded that the couple had earlier attempted settlement and even initiated mutual consent divorce proceedings after agreeing on permanent alimony of ₹32 lakh. The husband paid ₹20 lakh pursuant to the settlement, but the second motion for divorce was never filed as the settlement collapsed midway.

Subsequently, the wife returned the ₹20 lakh after the Supreme Court recorded her willingness to do so earlier this year.

While dissolving the marriage, the court also substantially enhanced the permanent alimony payable to the wife from the earlier agreed amount of ₹32 lakh to ₹50 lakh, calling it a fair and adequate settlement considering the parties’ financial capacities, lifestyle and years of separation.

The court also ordered closure of all pending proceedings between the parties pending before courts in Noida, including maintenance and domestic violence cases.