Multiple litigations against spouse is cruelty, says SC

Multiple litigations against spouse is cruelty, says SC

AmitAnand.Choudhary@timesgroup.com

New Delhi:14.09.2021

It took two decades for a marriage, which could not take off and was never consummated with spouses’ starting litigations just a fortnight after marrying, to be legally dissolved with the Supreme Court on Monday allowing the divorce plea of a husband holding that multiple litigations initiated by the wife against him amounts to cruelty.

A bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Hrishikesh Roy invoked special power under Article 142 of the Constitution to grant divorce on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage and also on account of cruelty in light of conduct of the wife for filing multiple cases in courts against him including a plea in the HC for disciplinary action against her husband who was working as an assistant professor in a government college.

The court noted that law has not been amended despite recommendations of the Law Commission to recognise irretrievable breakdown of marriage as a ground of divorce and the matter is also pending in the apex court. It, however, said that it would not serve any purpose to keep the matter pending and dissolved the marriage by invoking its special power to do justice.

The bench said that the trial court and the high court did not find adequate material to come to the conclusion that the husband was entitled to divorce on grounds of cruelty and the wife’s conduct during the pendency of the case had to be examined. The court noted that the wife had taken recourse to not just litigations but also publicly threatened him in his office. It said that the HC wrongly brushed aside these incidents as “wear and tear of marriage”.

“These continuing acts of the respondent would amount to cruelty even if the same had not arisen as a cause prior to the institution of the petition, as was found by the trial court. This conduct shows disintegration of marital unity and thus disintegration of the marriage. In fact, there was no initial integration itself which would allow disintegration afterwards. ,” the bench said.

Times View: In principle, this seems to be the right step. However, courts must take great care in determining exactly what amounts to unnecessary litigation.

INVOKING SPECIAL POWER