BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT

Civil appeal No. ____ of 2022

MS. SUNITA
................(Appellant)

v.

MR. RAMSHEKHAR
...............(Respondent)

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

Name: Jaininder Preet Kaur

Class: LLB – VI Semester
Roll No.: 19280245020
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Sr. No. Particulars Page No.

1. Table of Contents 2

2. List of Abbreviations 3

3. Index of Authorities 4

4. Statement of Jurisdiction 5

5. Statement of Facts 6

6. Issues Raised 8

7. Summary of Arguments 9

8. Arguments Advanced 10

9. Prayer 11

2
 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

AIR All India Reporter

SC Supreme Court
v. Versus

3
 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

CASES:

1. N Rajendran vs S Valli 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 224

2. Shyam Sunder Kohli vs Sushma Kohli @ Satya Devi, 2004, AIR 2004 SC 5111

BOOKS:

1. Commentary on the Constitution of India, by D.D. Basu

2. Mullas Hindu Law

WEBSITES:

1. www.indiankanoon.org
2. www.livelaw.in
3. www.barandbench.com
4. www.casemine.com

STATUTES:

1. Constitution of India, 1950

2. Hindu Marriage Act,1955

4
 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The respondent humbly submits that the present appeal is not maintainable in the Hon’ble Supreme
Court as grounds for divorce as mentioned in the present appeal are given as irretrievable breakdown of
marriage. This ground of divorce has not been provided under Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and as such
this Hon’ble court does not have the jurisdiction to try the present appeal.

5
 STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. That Ms. Sunita and Mr. Rakesh both belonged to IAS batch 2010.
2. That Ms. Sunita and Mr. Rakesh were good friends and decided to convert that friendship into
marital relationship.
3. That with the consent of their parents, Ms. Sunita and Mr. Rakesh got married under Special
Marriage Act, 1954 in the year 2012.
4. That Mr. Rakesh was an orthodox person, had high religious beliefs and wanted to have a male
child.
5. That Ms. Sunita being employed as an IAS officer took matrimonial leave and delivered two
babies, one Pinky in 2014 and one Tania in 2016.
6. That due to absence of male child, there were quarrels between husband and wife, and this
resulted in divorce between them by mutual consent.
7. That during this difficult period, Ms. Sunita was transferred to Delhi where she met Mr.
Ramshekhar, an IAS officer who expressed his desire to marry her.
8. That as Mr. Ramshekhar was already married at that time, they waited for his divorce.
9. That immediately after Mr. Ramshekhar’s divorce, Ms. Sunita and Mr. Ramshekhar got
married.
10. That soon after marriage, Ms. Sunita got very busy with administrative work and she decided
not to have children for 5 years.
11. That after marriage, Ms. Sunita didn’t take proper care of her husband.
12. That Mr. Ramshekhar tried his level best to balance the relationship.
13. That Ms. Sunita told her children, Pinky and Tania, that Mr. Ramshekhar is not their father.
14. That Ms. Sunita always avoided Pinky and Tania to spend time with Mr. Ramshekhar.
15. That in 2018, Ms. Sunita was transferred from Delhi to Bangalore, and hence she shifted from
Delhi to Bangalore.
16. That during this time, the behaviour of Ms. Sunita did not change and she was very dominant
and abusive on phone as well as in person whenever she met Mr. Ramshekhar.
17. That Mr. Ramshekhar was alone in Delhi and there was no one to take care of him, so he hired a
domestic servant, Ms. Hema.
18. That domestic servant, Ms. Hema was asked to stay at home which led to live-in relationship
between Ms. Hema and Mr. Ramshekhar.
19. That in June 2019, when Ms. Sunita visited Delhi, she came to know about the relationship of
Mr. Ramshekhar and Ms. Hema as Ms. Hema was pregnant.
20. That being aggrieved with misconduct and extra-marital affair of Mr. Ramshekhar, Ms. Sunita
served a notice of divorce.
21. That Ms. Sunita filed divorce petition in Family court, Delhi on the ground of irretrievable
breakdown of marriage.
22. That Family court dismissed the divorce petition.
23. That against the decision of the Family court, Ms. Sunita filed appeal in Delhi High Court,
claiming maintenance under Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
24. That High Court dismissed the appeal as there is no such specific provision under existing laws.
6
25. That Ms. Sunita filed Special leave petition in Supreme Court that divorce should be granted on
the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage.

7
 ISSUE RAISED

Issue that is presented via this appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court for discussion and
adjudication is as follows:

Whether there is an irretrievable breakdown of marriage?

8
 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

It is humbly contended before this Hon’ble court that there isn’t an irretrievable breakdown of marriage
between respondent-husband, Mr. Ramshekhar and appellant-wife, Ms. Sunita. The respondent admits
that there are differences between him and the appellant but mere differences don’t constitute
irretrievable breakdown of marriage.

The respondent and the appellant have been living separately since only one year and that was also
because of the transfer of the appellant from Delhi to Bangalore. Further, had there been no love and
affection left in the relationship, the appellant could have tried to get divorce on the alleged grounds of
matrimonial infidelity. All these things show that there is still hope for this relationship and it has not
broken down to the point that it is dead.

9
 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

Whether there is an irretrievable breakdown of marriage?

It is humbly contended before this Hon’ble court that there isn’t an irretrievable breakdown of marriage
between respondent-husband, Mr. Ramshekhar and appellant-wife, Ms. Sunita. Though there have been
differences between the respondent-husband and the appellant-wife, it is to be noted that differences
can occur in married life but all differences cannot be regarded as leading to irretrievable breakdown of
marriage.

Irretrievable breakdown of marriage has been justly defined by this Hon’ble court in N Rajendran vs S
Valli 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 224 as

Not even the slightest possibility of rapprochement between the appellant and the respondent exists for
reasons though which are entirely due to the actions of the appellant and for which the respondent
cannot be blamed. The marriage between the appellant and the respondent has become dead. It can be
described as a point of no return. There is no possibility of the appellant and the respondent stitching
together any kind of a reasonable relationship as the tie between the parties has broken beyond repair
and having regard to the facts of this case, we would think that it would be in the interest of justice and
to do complete justice to the parties that we should pass an order dissolving the marriage between the
appellant and the respondent.

It is worth noting that there should not even be the slightest possibility of rapprochement between the
appellant and the respondent. And further the marriage should have become dead and should be at a
point of no return. In the present appeal, this is not the case. The respondent-husband and the appellant-
wife have been living separately since only one year and that was also because of the transfer of the
appellant-wife from Delhi to Bangalore. Further, they have also been married recently and haven’t
spent much time with each other to develop the bond of matrimony.

That had there been no love and affection left in the relationship, the appellant-wife could have tried to
get divorce on the alleged grounds of matrimonial infidelity. But that she has proceeded to file divorce
on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage, shows that there is still a relationship of love and
affection between the appellant-wife and the respondent-husband, which clearly indicates that this is
not a fit case for divorce on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage.

In Shyam Sunder Kohli vs Sushma Kohli @ Satya Devi on 1 October, 2004, AIR 2004 SC 5111
this Hon’ble court held that

“On the ground of irretrievable break down of marriage, the Court must not lightly dissolve a
marriage. It is only in extreme circumstances that the Court may use this ground for dissolving a
marriage.”

10
 PRAYER

Therefore, in the light of the issue raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, may this Hon’ble
court be pleased to:

1. Dismiss the present appeal.

AND/OR

Pass any other order it may deem fit, in the interest of justice, equity and good conscience.

All of which is most humbly and respectfully submitted

Place: New Delhi Counsel for Respondent

Date: 10 March 2022

11