Marriage Should Not Be Taken As Broken Down Just Because Spouses Live Separately; Courts Must Identify Who Broke Ties : Supreme Court
The Supreme Court has recently cautioned High Courts and Trial Courts against dissolving marriages solely on the basis of couples living apart and labelling it an irretrievable breakdown. The Court emphasised that judges must undertake a thorough examination of the reasons behind the separation and determine the real cause of the spouses living separately. “we may hasten to add that Courts,...
The Supreme Court has recently cautioned High Courts and Trial Courts against dissolving marriages solely on the basis of couples living apart and labelling it an irretrievable breakdown. The Court emphasised that judges must undertake a thorough examination of the reasons behind the separation and determine the real cause of the spouses living separately.
“we may hasten to add that Courts, in recent times, often observe that since the parties are living separately, the marriage should be taken to have broken irretrievably. However, before jumping to such a conclusion, it is imperative upon the Family Court or the High Court to determine as to who out of the two is responsible for breaking the marital tie and forcing the other to live separately. Unless there is cogent evidence for willful desertion or refusal to cohabit and/or look after the other spouse, the finding of marriage having been broken irretrievably is likely to have devastating effects, especially on the children. The arrival of such a conclusion puts the Courts under an onurous duty to deeply analyse the entire evidence on record, consider the social circumstances and the background of the parties, and various other factors.” observed a bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi while setting aside the Uttarakhand High Court order which interfered with the trial court's order refusing to grant divorce to the Respondent-man against whom an allegation was labelled that he had thrown away the Appellant-wife from the matrimonial home making her to live separately forcefully.
The High Court allowed the husband's first appeal, and granted a divorce, treating the marriage to be an irretrievable breakdown of marriage merely because the couple were living separately. Being Aggrieved, the wife appealed to the Supreme Court.
Setting aside the impugned order, the Court said “the High Court has, for the reasons best known to it, not adverted to the appellant's plea that she was thrown out of the matrimonial home and was forced to live separately,” adding that the High Court should have determined the following scenarios:
(i) Whether the appellant was thrown out of the matrimonial home or she herself voluntarily deserted the respondent?
(ii) Whether the withdrawal of the first divorce petition wherein also the divorce was sought on the ground of cruelty, would bar the filing of second petition on the same cause of action?
(iii) Whether cruelty was committed by the respondent in not allowing the appellant to join the matrimonial home and/or by denying any maintenance, love, affection, and care to the minor child of the parties?
Accordingly, the appeal was partly allowed, and the matter is remitted back to the High Court for fresh adjudication in accordance with the law.
Cause Title: A v I
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1143
Appearance:
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Tushar Bakshi, AOR
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Satyajit A. Desai, Adv. Mr. Sachin Singh, Adv. Mr. Parth Johri, Adv. Mr. Sanchit Agrahari, Adv. Mr. Pratik Kumar Singh, Adv. Ms. Anagha S. Desai, AOR