In a significant ruling, the Madhya Pradesh High Court held that when a marriage has broken down irretrievably, opposition to a divorce by one spouse can itself amount to cruelty. The case involved a woman who had filed for divorce on the grounds of cruelty and desertion, alleging that her husband had demanded dowry and treated her harshly, eventually driving her out of the house. The husband, in turn, opposed the divorce, and the family court dismissed his wife’s petition; it presumed she was living an adulterous life after solemnizing a second marriage without obtaining a divorce, and declined her the relief of divorce.
The High Court, however, rejected that approach. The bench observed that there was a complete breakdown of the marriage: the parties, though married in May 2022, were living in constant tension and bitterness, and had not been able to rebuild their marital relationship. The woman’s second marriage was noted, but the Court found that no useful purpose would be served by denying her divorce simply because of her “default,” that is, her decision to remarry in the absence of a formal divorce.
While acknowledging that irretrievable breakdown of marriage is not explicitly listed as a ground for divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, the Court emphasized that practical realities cannot be ignored. It held that a refusal to grant divorce in such situations forces the parties to continue in an existence marked by daily suffering and inability to exercise their choices. The Court characterized irretrievable breakdown as “a species within the genus of cruelty,” reasoning that when the marital bond has completely broken down, the denial of choice to dissolve it causes ongoing emotional cruelty.
In reaching its conclusion, the Court underscored that denying divorce under these circumstances would only prolong the agony of the parties, depriving them of the fundamental right to live life on their own terms. It said that the husband’s opposition to the divorce, despite the impossibility of resuming marital life, inflicted cruelty on his wife by denying her the option of a new beginning and essential autonomy. Based on these findings, the High Court allowed the divorce petition, holding that the husband’s conduct—specifically, his insistence on remaining married even when there was no real possibility of reconciliation—amounted to cruelty under the Hindu Marriage Act.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.