Munish Kakkar v.

Nidhi Kakkar

Citation - Civil Appeal No. 9318 of 2014 : 200 ALL SCR 196

Judges - L. Nageswara Rao and B.R. Gavai

Facts :-

The marriage between the parties was solemnised consistent with Hindu rites within the year
2000. The parties stayed together for 2 months. Thereafter, the respondent left for a North
American country to be together with her family. Somewhere in 2002, the respondent
obtained Canadian citizenship. It would seem that the respondent was apparently inquisitive
about Canadian citizenship and solely once having achieved that, came back to the Republic
of India.

Even once coming there have been continuous quarrels between the parties. The panchayet
conjointly intervened, and also the parties were asked to reside one by one from their family,
in a very rented accommodation, however that too failed to last for over a few months. The
respondent on the other hand left for Canada.

The appellant filed for a divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 on
the ground of cruelty before the court and also the extra District decided to grant a decree of
divorce against that associate degree before the state supreme court of the geographical area.

The state supreme court put aside the decree of divorce, attributing varied allegations
between the parties to the wear and tear and tear of the wedding and “inflamed passions”.
The state supreme court opined that these weren't up to knocking down the walls of
weddings. Aggrieved by this, the appellant filed an associate degree appeal before the Apex
Court.

Issue :-

Can the court exercise its power under Section 13(1)(i-a) of The Hindu Marriage Act,1955.

Contentions :-

By Petitioner - The appellant filed in the lower court on the ground of cruelty for a divorce
under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The plaintiff argued that he had
been subjected to extreme physical and mental suffering due to loneliness and lack of
cohabitation. He had signed the immigration papers to save his marriage despite his
reluctance to travel to Canada, the appellant expressed. The papers haven't been submitted,
however. In fact, the appellant expressed that on improper travel documents the respondent
herself had reached Canada.

By Respondent - The respondent accused the appellant for undermining her in her claims and
made several other charges including dowry, physical assault and extramarital affairs. She
also said that when she was taken to a doctor once she was compelled to have an abortion.

This allegation was denied by the appellant and the respondent was never pregnant.
Judgement :-

Mere say of the wife that she is willing to stay with husband would not suffice, divorce
decree granted. Hindu Marriage Act (1955), S.13(1)(ia) - Constitution of India, Art. I42-
Divorce-Grant of by exercise of powers u/Art. 142 - Parties engaged in multifarious litigation
including divorce proceeding for almost two decades - Stay of parties was only for about two
months after marriage - Wife then left for Canada and also obtained Canadian Citizenship -
Wife claiming that she had travelled to Canada as husband wanted immigration to Canada -
However, she admitted that she had not taken any documents of husband with her -
Relationship appears to have deteriorated to such an extent that both parties see little good in
each other.
Though wife insists that she wants to live with husband, mere say of such willngness would
not suffice - This is only to frustrate efforts of husband to get decree of divorce - Continuity
of marriage is fruitless and causing emotional trauma and disturbance to both parties. Hence,
decree of divorce granted.
The Supreme Court recently dissolved a marriage by exercising its inherent powers under
Article 142 of the Constitution, even as it recognised that there is no statutory law for
recognising irretrievable breakdown of marriage as a ground for divorce in India.
The Bench passed a judgement to this effect after taking note that the Supreme Court has
earlier invoked its inherent powers under Article 142 to grant a divorce on the ground of
irretrievable breakdown of marriage. Further, the Court took note that this was done"not
only in cases where parties ultimately, before this Court, have agreed to do so but even
otherwise."
It was pointed out that,
"There is, thus, recognition of the futility of a completely failed marriage being continued
only on paper ... In numerous cases, where a marriage is found to be a dead letter, the Court
has exercised its extraordinary power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to bring
an end to it. "
Citing the judgement of R. Srinivas Kumar v. R. Shametha, the Bench added the caution that
such powers are not exercised routinely. However, the same could be invoked "in rare cases,
in view of the absence of legislation in this behalf, where it is found that marriage is totally
unworkable, emotionally dead, beyond salvage and has broken down irretrievably."
The Supreme Court ascertained that the link seems to have deteriorated to such an associate
extent that each party sees very little intelligence in one another, a facet supported by the
counsellor’s report; although the respondent insists that she needs to remain with the
appellant. It absolutely was noted by the Supreme Court, this insistence is merely to
somehow not let a decree of divorce be passed against the respondent. This is often solely to
frustrate the endeavour of the appellant to urge a decree of divorce, fully losing sight of the
actual fact that marital status relationships need changes from either side and a temperament
to remain. The mere say of such temperament wouldn't answer. The Court conjointly noted
that each one's endeavours are created to influence the parties to measure alone that haven't
succeeded. For that, it'd not be acceptable to hold accountable one or the opposite party,
however the actual fact is that nothing remains in this wedding.

Because of the irrevocable breakdown of the wedding worries, it absolutely was commanded
that since that failed to be a part of jurisprudence in India, that might not be treated as a
ground. However, the separation of sixteen (16) years since 2003 had created each the parties
bitter and distrustful concerning the link and there was no sign of any feeling or bonding on
either facet. The parties apparently had no history of pleasant time and solely feelings of
rancour arising from the many charge. There was conjointly no family support from either
facet.

The Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction below Article 142 of the Constitution of India,
granted a decree of divorce and dissolved the marriage to rest and see the parties straight off.

Conclusion :-

The Court proceeded to award a decree of divorce and dissolved the wedding within the
instant case, invoking its jurisdiction below Article 142. The Court additionally commanded
that the appellant ought to still pay maintenance of Rs.7,500 per month, though the parties
were granted liberty to manoeuvre acceptable proceedings to reinforce or scale back the
quantity.