Courts must strive to save marriages, but can't compel couples to stay together: Punjab and Haryana High Court

Saurabh Malik
Chandigarh, August 4
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has emphasised that the responsibility of saving marriages extends beyond the couples themselves. The courts, too, are tasked with making every effort to preserve marriages “as far as possible.” The Bench, at the same time, ruled that the courts cannot compel couples to live together if the relationship was beyond repair.

Advertisement

The Bench of Justice Sureshwar Thakur and Justice Sudeepti Sharma asserted the legislative intent behind enacting Section 23(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act was to ensure effort by the courts to reconcile dispute as these at times arose because of small instances, which could be resolved by judicial intervention.

“It is undoubtedly the responsibility of the court and the parties involved to save the marriage as far as possible. But when there is no scope and it appears that there is no benefit in trying to keep the parties bound to it indefinitely, it is for the benefit of both the parties and the children that they should part their ways,” the Bench asserted.

The judges also made it clear that the husbands and wives are not mere “properties” that the “courts can mandate to live together.” The assertion came as the Bench examined a prolonged matrimonial dispute where the parties had been living separately for nearly 19 years.

A significant point in the case was the respondent wife’s decision to lodge an FIR against the husband, leading to his conviction. The Bench observed that the wife’s action constituted cruelty, as it was practically impossible for a couple to cohabit when one party had been subjected to criminal proceedings by the other.

The Bench added lodging of an FIR resulting in a conviction created a situation of mental cruelty for the husband, making it unreasonable to expect the couple to continue living together. “The wife’s action constitutes cruelty, as it is practically impossible for the party against whom FIR is lodged or case is registered to live together under one roof. Consequently, this situation amounts to mental cruelty inflicted on the appellant/husband by the respondent/wife”.

The judges were also critical of the lower court for failing to acknowledge the irretrievable breakdown of the marriage and for not considering the practical implications of the parties’ continued separation and lack of reconciliation efforts.

“The court below failed to consider that matrimonial matters are inherently sensitive. The courts while deciding the cases must carefully consider the practical aspect and consequences of the parties living together. Once the courts have observed that the marriage has been irretrievably broken no fruitful purpose would be served in directing them to live together and this would not amount to doing justice to both the parties,” the Bench observed.