CHANDRAKALA TRIVEDI V. DR. S.P.

TRIVEDI, (1993) 4 SCC 232

FACTS

It should be noted that both the appellant (wife) and the respondent (husband) are from
middle-class backgrounds. Their father was a vaid in his professional life. The husband and
the wife were married when the husband was doing his Internship at the J.J. Hospital in
Bombay, and a daughter was born to them, who, it should be noted, is currently married. The
disagreement appears to have arose somewhere in the late seventies, nine years after the
marriage, as a result of the husband's claimed closeness with another lady doctor, which
finally resulted in the husband submitting a petition for divorce on the grounds of cruelty
against the wife. When a written statement was submitted and charges of infidelity were
levelled against the husband, he responded by making up a case about his wife's unwelcome
connection with young boys.

LEGAL ISSUES

Whether irretrievable breakdown of marriage can be a valid ground of divorce? Marriage is

considered to be very sacrosanct in Indian scenario and thus it’s not possible for Indian
couples to give divorce easily. Such divorce is considered against the norms of society.

Whether a court can create an ad hoc law by using its authority under article 142 of the
Constitution of India? Since irretrievable breakdown of marriage is not stated as a valid
ground in any of the legislation governing divorce.

Whether this ground can be claimed by a party who is in advantageous position after getting a
divorce or is there any test to apply this ground?

Is there a requirement to codify this ground in the legislation governing divorce?

ANALYSIS

When a marriage fails irreversibly or when circumstances hostile to the marriage arise, it is
said to have ended irretrievably since there is no realistic prospect of the couple continuing
together as husband and wife in order to provide mutual comfort and support to each other.
The condition that happens in a marriage when one spouse refuses to live with the other and
will not strive towards reconciliation is referred to as "divorce." It is possible that the
marriage would be regarded irretrievably broken down if there is not even a glimmer of hope
that the parties will be able to reconcile and continue their marital life.1

Despite the fact that it is unacceptable for a Hindu lady to be a divorcee, the Supreme Court
determined, without addressing the legitimacy of the accusations, that their relationship had
become so acrimonious and hostile as a result of their accusing each other of such lowly
behaviour that it would be in the interests of both parties to be divorced rather than continue
to live in unhappiness with each other in the matrimonial home under the current
circumstances. Consequently, in light of the total disintegration of the marriage, the Court
upheld the divorce judgement by allowing irretrievable breakdown of marriage via a back
door entry to be admitted into evidence.2

CONCLUSION

Marriage is, without a question, a personal connection, but it is also a social institution

with a wide range of social elements that must be considered. True happiness, which the
institution of marriage may bestow to a man or woman, can only be discovered via a couple's
continual pursuit of harmony. The indiscreet and unguided divorce legislation has the
potential to undermine everything that is good about the marriage institution. Even if we
regard marriage to be a purely contractual arrangement, it cannot be claimed that the interests
of the parties must be taken into consideration during a divorce procedure. It is the greater
societal interest that should take precedence above the particular interests of political parties.

Marriage that has irretrievably broken down has been recommended to be designated a cause
for divorce by both the Indian Law Commission 3 and the Supreme Court. Consequently, the
researcher proposes that the granting of divorce on the grounds of irretrievably broken
marriage should be codified in order to make the law clearer and uniform for all parties
involved. Until recently, the Supreme Court has followed a pattern in which, when it finds
that a marriage has irretrievably broken down, it gives a judgement of divorce by using the
authority provided to it by Article 142 of the Indian Constitution. However, the difficulty
with this approach is that it leads to the creation of ad hoc case law. In addition, only the
Supreme Court has the authority to provide remedy under Article 142. The Supreme Court
will not be able to utilize this. In other words, codifying the principle of irretrievable

1
Kiran v. Sharad Dutt , (2000) 10 SCC 243; Swati Verma v. Rajan Verma , AIR 2004 SC 161.
2
PARAS DIWAN, HINDU LAW, 2ND EDITION, 563 (2005).
3
71st Report of the Law Commission, Government of India, p.18.
breakdown of marriage will empower other courts to award divorce, resulting in faster justice
and a reduction in the number of cases that must be heard by the Supreme Court.

Some academics are opposed to it, fearing that in order to assist this dishonest spouse, their
wives may abandon their husbands and take advantage of this provision. For this reason, the
researcher argues that the marriage between the parties should not be dissolved solely on the
basis of the assertions made by one of the parties that the marriage between them has failed to
function.4 The court must consider all of the facts and circumstances of each case from a
holistic perspective. If a party finds himself or herself in an advantageous situation due to his
or her own fault and then attempts to claim that the marriage has broken down, the court shall
not use its power to dissolve the marriage on this basis. It is also necessary that the provision
be backed by marriage property rights, both for the mother and her children, in order for it to
be effective. The legislature is expected to take note of this and add the principle of
irretrievable collapse of marriage as a reason for divorce, which is much desired by the
public.

4
Vijender Kumar, Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage : Right of A Married Couple, 5 NALSAR L.R. 15
(2010).