Divorce granted on the ground of “irretrievable breakdown of marriage”

In a very recent judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Case of “Rajib Kumar Roy Vs. Sushmita Saha” Civil Appeal No.5454 of 2023 dated 21.08.2023, it has been held that “Twelve years of separation, is a sufficiently long period of time to have sapped all emotions which the two perhaps may have had once for each other. We therefore cannot take the same hopeful view as that of the High Court, which still believes that the matrimonial bond between the two has not ruptured beyond repair or that the two cannot still give a new lease of life to their relationship. Frankly, no matter how much we would have liked this to happen in reality, this is a possibility, which under the facts and circumstances of the case, can only be called wishful. Continued bitterness, dead emotions, and long separation, in the given facts and circumstances of a case, can be construed as a case of “irretrievable breakdown of marriage”, which is also a facet of “cruelty”

The fact of the case:-

The facts of the case as mentioned in the judgment are that the appellant and the respondent are husband and wife who were married on 12.05.2007 as per Hindu rites and rituals, at the maternal house of the respondent at Udaipur in district Gomati, Tripura. The husband resides in Agartala (Tripura) where presently he is posted as DGM (Executive Engineer on an adhoc basis) in Tripura State Electricity Corporation Limited (TSECL for short). The wife is also well-educated and qualified and is presently employed as a teacher at Brilliant Stars School in Udaipur. Within three years of matrimonial life, bitterness started creeping into the relationship between the couple. The husband alleges that the wife is disrespectful towards his old parents and gives preference to her job as a teacher ignoring her household responsibilities. The wife alleges torture and cruelty, and demands of dowry at the hands of her husband and in-­laws, and has stated before the courts in no uncertain terms that she can live with her husband only if he comes and stays at Udaipur, Tripura. She is not willing to live with her husband in Agartala. The admitted fact as of now is that the two have been living separately, the husband at Agartala and the wife at Udaipur, for the last 12 years. The couple has a 12-year-old daughter who lives with the mother. As per the appellant, the respondent left her matrimonial house on 16.05.2010 ostensibly for spending vacations with her parents. At that time she was on the family's way, having two months of pregnancy. Since then the respondent has not returned to her matrimonial home. She gave birth to a female child on 11.01.2011. In spite of many requests, she never returned to Agartala. The girl child is with the wife who is presently teaching in a school where she earns around Rs.31,085/­ (Rupees Thirty-One Thousand Eighty-Five per month) and the girl child, now twelve years of age, also studies in the same school, where her tuition fee is exempted. Earlier the husband had filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for Restitution of Conjugal Rights) on 09.11.2012 before Family Court, Agartala, Tripura (subsequently transferred to Family Court, Udaipur) which was dismissed on 29.08.2013. An appeal was filed before the High Court which was subsequently withdrawn. The petition for dissolution of marriage on grounds of cruelty and desertion was later filed by the appellant before the Family Court, West Tripura, Agartala on 15.02.2017 which was also dismissed on 08.03.2019. The appeal filed by the husband/appellant against that order was also dismissed by the High Court vide its order dated 28.02.2022. It is this order which is under challenge before this Court. The High Court has taken into consideration all aspects including the fact that the couple has been living separately for the last more than 10 years but that in itself was not considered to be cruelty. 

Court observations:-

The husband and wife have been living separately. The wife has been in Udaipur (district Gomati), Tripura, and the husband in Agartala, Tripura for the last 12 years. Nothing would give us more satisfaction if the two could work out their differences and decide to live together, if only for the sake of their child. But under the circumstances, with the rigid attitude of both parties, who have failed to appreciate the beauty of compromise, we have been forced to convince ourselves, albeit regrettably, that the two cannot now live together. Twelve years of separation is a sufficiently long period of time to have sapped all emotions that the two perhaps may have had once for each other. We therefore cannot take the same hopeful view as that of the High Court, which still believes that the matrimonial bond between the two has not ruptured beyond repair or that the two cannot still give a new lease of life to their relationship. Frankly, no matter how much we would have liked this to happen in reality, this is a possibility, which under the facts and circumstances of the case, can only be called wishful. Continued bitterness, dead emotions, and long separation, in the given facts and circumstances of a case, can be construed as a case of “irretrievable breakdown of marriage”, which is also a facet of “cruelty”.

Judgments relied upon:-

 In Rakesh Raman v. Kavita reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 497, this is precisely what was held, that though in a given case cruelty as a fault, may not be attributable to one party alone and hence despite the irretrievable breakdown of marriage keeping the parties together amounts to cruelty on both sides, which is precisely the case at hand.

Whatever may be the justification for the two living separately, with so much time gone by, any marital love or affection, that may have been between the parties, seems to have dried up. This is a classic case of irretrievable breakdown of marriage. In view of the Constitution Bench Judgment of this court in Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 544 has held that in such cases where there is irretrievable breakdown of marriage then the dissolution of marriage is the only solution and this Court can grant a decree of divorce in the exercise of its power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India.

Conclusion:- 

We therefore declare the marriage to have broken down irretrievably and therefore in the exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India we are of the considered opinion that this being a case of irretrievable breakdown of marriage must now be dissolved by grant of decree of divorce.

All the same, we are also aware of the fact that the couple have a twelve-year-old daughter, towards whom the appellant owes his duty of bearing expenses for schooling and education. Consequently, we direct an amount of Rs.20,00,000/­ (Rupees Twenty Lakh only) to be deposited by the appellant on the account of the respondent within a period of six months from today. The amount deposited shall be kept in a Fixed Deposit (FD) so that it can earn interest which can be given to the respondent on a quarterly basis. The respondent would be at liberty to encash the amount deposited as F.D., at any time after 5 years from now, as that would be the time when expenditure is likely to be incurred for the higher education of the girl child. Till the amount of Rs.20,00,000/­ as indicated by us is deposited, the appellant will continue to pay the respondent an amount of Rs.15,000/­ (Rupees Fifteen Thousand per month) as maintenance. The appellant shall have visitation rights towards his daughter (Abantika Roy) till she attains maturity. The terms and conditions of visitation rights shall be decided by the Mediation Centre attached to the High Court of Tripura, Agartala, within three months from now. The parties are directed to appear before the Mediation Centre, at Agartala at 11.00 AM on September 1, 2023. We hereby grant a decree of divorce on account of irretrievable breakdown of marriage. Let the decree of divorce be drawn, accordingly. The decree shall be handed over to the parties, only after the deposit of the full amount as indicated by us above. The Judgement dated 28.02.2022 passed by the High Court of Tripura at Agartala is hereby quashed and set aside. The present appeal is disposed of in terms of the above directions.