Spouse responsible for collapse of marriage cannot take advantage of irretrievable breakdown of matrimony, says Supreme Court

Frowning upon the mechanical manner in which a Bengaluru family court granted a decree of divorce against a woman despite no fault being attributed to her, the Supreme Court has said a spouse cannot take benefit of annulment of the marriage despite being solely responsible for breakdown of the matrimony.

“The bogey of irretrievably breaking down of marriage cannot be used to the advantage of a party (husband) who is solely responsible for tearing down the marital relationship,” the bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan said.

In a protracted litigation, the husband obtained divorce from the family court in three rounds but the first two decrees were set aside by the Karnataka High Court. Sustaining the third decree of divorce upheld by the high court with certain modifications, the top court ordered the man to pay Rs 10 lakh to his divorced wife over and above an amount of Rs 20 lakh already paid to her.

It said his property in which she was living with her mother-in-law and son shall be their exclusive property.

“If the respondent (husband) owns any other immovable property, the son of the parties shall have preferential ownership rights in the same irrespective of any transfer of title by the respondent. This direction is necessitated for the reason that he (son of the parties) has an indefeasible and enforceable right to seek maintenance and adequate amount towards his school and higher education,” the Bench said in an order last month.

“In case the respondent fails to comply with any of the conditions imposed above, the decree of divorce granted by the Family Court, as upheld by the High Court, shall be deemed to have been set aside and declared null and void. Similarly, if the respondent fails to pay the above awarded amount to the appellant within the stipulated time, the Family Court is directed to take coercive action against him in accordance with law,” it ordered.

The top court faulted the family court for handling the case in an insensitive manner. “The mechanical manner in which the Family Court kept on passing decrees of divorce against the appellant not only exhibit a lack of sensitivity, but also suggests a hidden prejudice against the appellant. The courts ought not to have accorded any premium to the respondent’s (husband’s) own misdemeanours,” it said.

“It seems to us that the judicial system has been grossly injudicious to the appellant and her minor child, who has now attained majority. We say so for the reason that it is the respondent (husband) who subjected the appellant (wife) to extreme cruelty all these years, and never came forward to render any assistance for securing a better future for his own son or offered to pay even for his school education,” it said.

The parties got married on November 10, 1991, and a son was born from the wedlock on August 20, 1992. The husband – who allegedly deserted the wife soon after the child was born, filed a petition in 2002 seeking divorce on the ground of cruelty before a Bengaluru family court which dissolved the marriage on August 3, 2006.

On an appeal made by the wife, decree of divorce set aside by the Karnataka High Court on August 26, 2010, and the matter was remanded to the family court which again granted decree of divorce on February 21, 2011, on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage. However, the second decree of divorce was also set aside by the high court on November 29, 2013, and the case was remanded to the Bengaluru family court.

Third time also the husband secured a decree of divorce on February 12, 2016, from the family court which ordered him to pay a permanent alimony of Rs 25 lakh to her.

The wife challenged the third decree of divorce before the high court which not only dismissed her appeal but also reduced the permanent alimony from Rs 25 lakh to Rs 20 lakh without the husband challenging the quantum of permanent alimony. The wife challenged the high court order before the top court.