Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage IV

After a few mediation sessions before Supreme Court Mediation Centre, Sandesh submitted before us, he was not interested in pursuing a mediated settlement before Supreme Court Mediation Centre. However, Rinku and Sandesh agreed to attempt a mediated settlement before a Retired Judge of this Court. Consequently, Retd. Justice S. Ravindra Bhat was appointed as a Mediator. Rinku and Sandesh have not been able to reach a mutually agreeable settlement.

_____

Court in Achin Gupta v. State of Haryana, (2024) 6 SCR 129 had highlighted growing problem of trivial quarrels between spouses turning into criminal complaints.

As rightly observed by Justice Dalveer Bhandari J in Naveen Kohli v. Neelu Kohli, (2006) 4 SCC 558, “nothing is gained by trying to keep parties tied for ever to a marriage that in fact has ceased to exist.”

_____

Anil Kumar Jain v. Maya Jain, (2009) 14 SCR 90; K. Srinivas Rao v. D.A. Deepa, (2013) 2 SCR 126; R. Srinivas Kumar v. R. Shametha, (2019) 12 SCR 873; Munish Kakkar v. Nidhi Kakkar, (2019) 15 SCR 169; N. Rajendran v. S. Valli, (2022) 16 SCR 498; Rakesh Raman v. Kavita, (2023) 3 SCR 552; Delma Lubna Coelho v. Edmond Clint Fernandes, (2023) 4 SCR 473; Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan, (2023) 5 SCR 165; Nirmal Singh Panesar v. Paramjit Kaur Panesar, (2023) 13 SCR 832; Prakashchandra Joshi v. Kuntal Prakashchandra Joshi, (2024) 1 SCR 697; Vikas Kanaujia v. Sarita, (2024) 7 SCR 933.

There now remains no doubt, Court has power to grant a decree of divorce on grounds of irretrievable breakdown of marriage by invoking its powers under Article 142(1). But, what constitutes an irretrievable breakdown has to be determined by undertaking a factual analysis using judicial discretion in light of several non-exhaustive factors laid down in Shilpa Sailesh. This is a fit case for us to exercise our discretion under Article 142(1).

_____

Rajnesh v. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324 elaborated upon broad criteria and factors to be considered for determining quantum of maintenance. Law with respect to deciding amount of permanent alimony was summarised recently in Kiran Jyot Maini v. Anish Pramod Patel, (2024) 7 SCR 942.

We have serious reservations with tendency of parties seeking maintenance or alimony as an equalisation of wealth. Once parties have separated, it cannot be expected of a Husband to maintain his Wife as per his present status all his life. We wonder, would a Wife be willing to seek an equalisation of wealth with her Husband if due to some unfortunate events post-separation, he has been rendered a pauper?

– Hon’ble Justice B.V. Nagarathna, Rinku Baheti v. Sandesh Sharda, [Transfer Petition (Civil) No. 278 of 2023].