‘Dead marriages’: Punjab and Haryana High Court rules no point in forcing reunions

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has made it clear that attempting to reunite a couple in a marriage that has become “unworkable and totally dead” serves no purpose.

The observation came in a case involving a marital dispute lingering for more than 17 years.

Here is what you need to know about the case and its implications:

What led to the court’s ruling?

An Air Force officer challenged a 2014 judgment by an Additional District Judge dismissing his petition for divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The couple had been living separately for 17 years, with no signs of reconciliation. The court noted that forcing a reunion in such circumstances would create a legal fiction, disregarding the emotional and practical realities of the relationship.

What did the court say?

No reunion in dead marriages: The Division Bench of Justice Sudhir Singh and Justice Alok Jain stated: “No purpose would be served by ordering the reunion of the parties when the marriage has become unworkable and totally dead.”

Mental Cruelty: Forcing parties to remain in such a marriage amounts to mental cruelty, the court held. While courts have a duty to preserve matrimonial bonds, this obligation diminishes when the marriage has irretrievably broken down.

How does the court define cruelty?

Cruelty can take physical or mental forms and must be such that it becomes impossible for one party to live with the other. The spouse alleging cruelty must demonstrate behaviour that makes reunion infeasible.  The court emphasised that cruelty must be assessed on a case-by-case basis, considering the gravity of each situation.

What role did past litigation play?

The husband's acquittal in a criminal case filed by the wife was deemed an act of cruelty. The court observed that prolonged litigation only worsened the relationship, making reconciliation impossible.

What was the final verdict?

The court allowed the appeal, dissolving the marriage and setting aside the family court’s earlier judgment. The judgment is significant as it brings out the importance of addressing the emotional realities of a marital relationship and avoiding legal frictions that prolong suffering.

The ruling provides clear guidelines for courts handling cases of irretrievable breakdowns in marriages.

By prioritising the feelings and emotions of the parties involved, the judgment signals a shift towards a more compassionate judicial approach in matrimonial disputes.

This decision makes it clear that the preservation of marriage is vital, but the courts must acknowledge when a marriage has reached an irreversible end, ensuring justice is served without unnecessary delays or suffering.