In a significant judgment, the Supreme Court of India has held that when a husband and wife hold completely opposing views and refuse to accommodate each other, the marriage itself amounts to 'cruelty' to both parties and constitutes a valid ground for divorce. The ruling brings to an end a protracted matrimonial dispute that spanned nearly 24 years.
A Marriage of Opposing Views
A Bench comprising Justices Manmohan and Joymalya Bagchi delivered the verdict, allowing the husband's appeal for divorce. The couple, both employees of the Life Insurance Corporation (LIC), had tied the knot in Shillong in the year 2000. However, their union began to unravel within a year due to a fundamental disagreement: the husband's family insisted the wife quit her job, while she was determined to continue working to support her ailing mother and siblings.
This irreconcilable difference led to constant pressure, and the wife left the matrimonial home in 2001. The husband first sought divorce in 2003, but the petition was dismissed as premature. He filed a fresh plea in 2007, alleging wilful desertion. While a trial court granted divorce in 2010, the Gauhati High Court's Shillong Bench overturned it in 2011, stating the wife left due to ill-treatment and the husband had made no sincere reconciliation attempt.
The Supreme Court's Observations on Mutual Cruelty
The husband challenged the High Court's decision in the Supreme Court in 2012. After a 13-year pendency, the apex court noted the stark reality of the situation. The couple had lived separately for over two decades, had no children, and worked in the same LIC office without any interaction. Court-directed mediation in 2012 had also failed.
The Bench made a pivotal observation, stating it is not for the court or society to judge which spouse's view of marriage is correct. 'It is their strongly held views and their refusal to accommodate each other that amounts to cruelty to one another,' the Court said, as reported by Bar and Bench. The judges emphasized that a relationship marked by mutual resentment and an unwillingness to compromise cannot survive, and such conduct is cruel to both.
Ending an Irretrievably Broken Marriage
The Supreme Court clarified that the fault-based framework of the Hindu Marriage Act does not limit its constitutional powers to grant divorce where a marriage has completely broken down. It held that the prolonged separation of over 20 years itself amounted to cruelty to both spouses and that continuing litigation only exacerbates emotional suffering.
Concluding that the marriage had lost all sanctity and reconciliation was impossible, the Bench ruled that this irretrievably broken relationship must be formally dissolved. The judgment underscores that in matrimonial matters, the court's role is not to assign blame but to recognize when a union has ceased to exist in any meaningful sense, paving the way for legal closure.
