IRRETRIEVABLE BREAKDOWN - MEANS TO AN END BY ANIL AND ANKIT MALHOTRA

IRRETRIEVABLE BREAKDOWN – MEANS TO AN END

BY- ANIL AND ANKIT MALHOTRA*

While Indian statutory law does not explicitly recognise irretrievable breakdown as a ground for divorce, Supreme Court has, in exceptional cases, invoked Article 142 of Constitution to grant divorces when they believe marriage is beyond repair. Supreme Court has often used Article 142 of Constitution to address such cases, circumventing statutory framework. In Kiran Jyot Maini v. Anish Pramod Patel 2024 INSC 530, decided by Supreme Court on July 15, 2024, using its jurisdiction under Article 142 of Constitution, Supreme Court granted divorce to parties on payment of a one time lump sum alimony amount of Rs. 2 crores by husband to wife.   Similarly in Parvin Kumar Jain v. Anju Jain 2024 INSC 961, decided by Supreme Court on December 10, 2024, exercising its powers under Article 142 of Constitution, Supreme Court granted divorce to parties upon payment of a one time settlement amount of Rs. 5 crores for wife and son and another amount of Rs. 1 crore for maintenance, care and higher education of son.

Cases of Disha Kushwaha v. Rituraj Singh[1], Kiran Jyot Maini v. Anish Pramod Patel 2024 INSC 530 and Parvin Kumar Jain v. Anju Jain 2024 INSC 961 serve as significant illustrations of application of irretrievable breakdown in matrimonial disputes. These cases decided by Supreme Court underscore several critical aspects of irretrievable breakdown as a ground for divorce and can be highlighted with following points:

1.   Flexibility in Grounds for Divorce: Judgments highlight adaptability of matrimonial laws to contemporary societal changes, allowing individuals to seek divorce without need to prove specific faults or misconduct.

2.   Judicial Discretion: Cases illustrate role of Supreme Court in assessing nuanced dynamics of marital relationships, granting divorce when it is evident that marriage cannot be salvaged.

3.   Protection of Individual Well-being: By recognising irretrievable breakdowns, legal system prioritises mental and emotional well-being of individuals involved, providing a humane and pragmatic approach to marital dissolution.

Precedent for Future Cases: Disha Kushwaha and other two decisions set a precedent for future matrimonial disputes, guiding future matrimonial litigation courts to adopt a balanced and empathetic approach when dealing with irretrievable breakdown of marriage. For Family Courts and High Courts, grounds of mutual consent can be used for settlements and agreeable divorce.

On May 1, 2023, a Constitution Bench of Supreme Court delivered a unanimous judgment in Shilpa Sailesh v Varun Sreenivasan, 2023 (3) R.C.R. (Civil) 107, held that Supreme Court can directly grant a divorce on grounds of ‘irretrievable breakdown of marriage’ under Article 142 of Constitution. This case revolves around interpretation of Article 142 of Indian Constitution, which grants Supreme Court extraordinary power to do "complete justice" in any case pending before it. This provision, although originally intended to fill gaps in law and ensure justice is served, has increasingly been interpreted to give Supreme Court wide discretionary powers in various fields, including matrimonial disputes such as divorce. A closer examination of legal framework governing divorce in India and scope of Article 142 is essential for understanding case at hand. To expand further, in context of divorce cases under Article 142 of Indian Constitution, Supreme Court of India has faced question of whether it possesses power to directly grant divorces, by passing lower court proceedings. Article 142 grants Supreme Court extraordinary jurisdiction to pass orders to do "complete justice" in any case pending before it. Historically, this provision has been invoked in a wide array of cases, but its application to matrimonial disputes, particularly in divorce cases, has raised significant debate. Article 142(1) provides Supreme Court with a wide jurisdiction to pass any order necessary to achieve "complete justice" in matters pending before it. Article 142(1) of Constitution states as follows:

"The Supreme Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree or make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it, and any decree so passed, or orders so made shall be enforceable throughout the territory of India..."

This provision is unique in Indian legal framework, as it places Supreme Court’s powers beyond limitations of specific statutes or procedural laws, allowing it to fashion remedies that may not be strictly available in statutory provisions. This extraordinary power is justified in exceptional circumstances where Court deems that existing laws fall short of delivering "complete justice." Historically, Supreme Court has used Article 142 in various types of cases, including criminal law, environmental law, and civil disputes. However, its application in matrimonial matters, specifically divorce, has gained attention more recently. Divorce is governed by specific statutory frameworks, such as Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Special Marriage Act, 1954, and Indian Divorce Act, 1869, each of which lays down defined procedures and grounds for divorce. Application of Article 142 to bypass or supplement these statutes has raised significant questions regarding balance between judicial discretion and legislative frameworks. As such, application of Article 142 to directly grant divorces has been controversial since it effectively bypasses these statutory safeguards.

·         JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS INVOLVING ARTICLE 142 IN MATRIMONIAL CASES

Over years, Supreme Court has invoked Article 142 in matrimonial disputes, particularly in cases where one or both parties are unwilling to follow prolonged legal processes for divorce or where reconciliation attempts have failed. Article 142 grants Supreme Court of India broad powers to pass any decree or order necessary to do complete justice in any case or matter pending before it. This article serves as a tool for judiciary to address gaps in law and ensure that justice is not only done but also seen to be done. Relevance in Matrimonial Cases:

·         Filling Legal Gaps: Matrimonial disputes often involve complex and unique circumstances that existing statutes may not fully address. For instance, issues like custody of children in unconventional family structures or nuanced financial arrangements post-divorce may require judicial intervention beyond scope of existing laws. Article 142 empowers Supreme Court to issue comprehensive remedies tailored to specifics of such cases.

·         Ensuring Fair Outcomes: In cases where lower courts may have erred in interpretation or application of law, parties can appeal to Supreme Court. Article 142 allows Supreme Court to rectify such errors, ensuring that final decree aligns with principles of justice and equity.

·         Enforcing Rights: In situations where statutory remedies are insufficient to protect an individual's rights—for example, in cases of domestic violence where immediate protection is necessary—Supreme Court can use Article 142 to provide swift and effective relief.

Some key cases include:

·         K. Srinivas Rao v. D.A. Deepa, (2013) 5 SCC 226: In this case, Supreme Court invoked Article 142 to dissolve marriage on grounds of irretrievable breakdown, despite absence of a statutory provision for such a ground under Hindu Marriage Act. Court emphasized need to avoid prolonged agony for parties in cases where marriage had no chance of survival.

·         Anil Kumar Jain v. Maya Jain, (2009) 10 SCC 415: Here, Supreme Court held that power under Article 142 could be used to dissolve a marriage in case of irretrievable breakdown, even though statutory framework did not recognize such a ground. Court noted that while irretrievable breakdown was not included in statute, situation merited use of Article 142 to grant complete justice.

·         Manish Goel v. Rohini Goel, (2010) 4 SCC 393: This case involved a petition under Article 136 of Constitution where Supreme Court was asked to grant a divorce decree using Article 142. Court ruled that Article 142 should be exercised sparingly and only in cases where it was necessary to ensure complete justice. Court also expressed concern that using Article 142 to dissolve marriages might overstep its intended purpose.

·         Narendra v. K. Meena, (2016) 9 SCC 455: Court again invoked Article 142 in this case to grant divorce on grounds of mental cruelty. Despite procedural challenges in proving cruelty under statutory law, Court held that invoking Article 142 allowed them to pass a just order based on evidence at hand.

Thus, while Court’s invocation of irretrievable breakdown aims to provide relief in situations where marriage is unsalvageable, it also highlights tension between judicial activism and procedural fairness. Expansion of Article 142 of Constitution in this manner exposes gaps in matrimonial law but also points to urgent need for legislative reform that carefully balances autonomy of individuals with procedural and substantive protections necessary to avoid exploitation.

*Author, a practising lawyer, has ten books pertaining to issues of private international law. He can be reached at anilmalhotra1960@gmail.com. www.anilmalhotra.co.in

Advocate, Malhotra & Malhotra Associates, India.

LL.M [London]&Felix Scholar, School of Oriental &African Studies, University of London, London.

Email: ankitmalhotra97@gmail.com , Website :https://www.ankitmalhotra.co.in

[1] AIR 2019 Madhya Pradesh 217.