The Uttarakhand High Court has allowed the dissolution of a marriage where the parties separated only 25 days after their wedding. This decision underscores the principle that prolonging a "dead marriage" is equivalent to inflicting cruelty on both partners.
Case Background
The marriage, solemnized on May 2, 2019, saw the couple living separately since the same year. The husband filed for divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, citing cruelty. However, the Family Court in Haridwar dismissed the petition in 2021. Subsequently, the husband appealed the decision.
Court's Observations
The Division Bench, comprising Chief Justice Ritu Bahri and Justice Rakesh Thapliyal, observed that there was no possibility of reconciliation or emotional bonding between the parties, who had been separated for nearly five years. The court stated, "This marriage is nothing more than a dead marriage, and if both the parties are not granted divorce, it will amount to cruelty to both the parties."
Permanent Alimony and Interim Maintenance
The court directed the husband to pay INR 25 lakhs as permanent alimony within six weeks, as per his undertaking. During the pendency of the divorce case, the Family Court had earlier decided on a maintenance amount of INR 20,000 per month. In 2022, the High Court granted interim maintenance of the same amount to the wife from the date of filing the appeal.
Legal Precedents and Qualifications of Parties
The court referenced apex court judgments in Prakashchandra Joshi v. Kuntal Prakashchandra Joshi @ Kuntal Visanji Shah (2024) and Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan (2023), which discussed the irretrievable breakdown of marriage after prolonged separation. Additionally, the court noted that both parties were qualified, which added to the justification that continuing the marriage would be cruel since there was no chance of patching up.
Conclusion
This landmark decision by the Uttarakhand High Court highlights the importance of recognizing when a marriage has irretrievably broken down and the necessity of granting divorce to prevent cruelty to both parties involved. The court's ruling reinforces the principle that a dead marriage should not be prolonged, ensuring the emotional well-being of both partners.
This judgment is significant as it reiterates the legal system's responsibility to acknowledge and address the realities of marital relationships that have effectively ended, even if they formally persist. The case underscores the judicial perspective that upholding the continuation of such a marriage is unjust and detrimental to the involved individuals.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.