By PTI
NEW DELHI: Bringing down the curtains on a 27-year-old marital discord, the Supreme Court refused to grant divorce to a few within the “late evening of their lives” saying the establishment of marriage occupies an necessary place and performs a key position within the society.
The prime courtroom stated regardless of the growing pattern of submitting divorce proceedings in courts, the establishment of marriage remains to be thought of to be a pious, non secular and invaluable emotional life-net between {couples} within the Indian society.
A bench of justices Aniruddha Bose and Bela M Trivedi dismissed the attraction filed by a 89-year-old man in opposition to the choice of the Punjab and Haryana High Court reversing a Chandigarh’s district courtroom order granting divorce to him. His spouse is aged 82.
“In our opinion, one should not be oblivious to the fact that the institution of marriage occupies an important place and plays an important role in society…It is governed not only by the letters of law but by social norms as well. So many other relationships stem from and thrive on the matrimonial relationships in society. Therefore, it would not be desirable to accept the formula of ‘irretrievable breakdown of marriage’ as a strait-jacket formula for the grant of relief of divorce under Article 142 of the Constitution of India,” the bench stated.
The prime courtroom famous the spouse all all through her life has maintained the sacred relationship since 1963 and has taken care of her three youngsters even if her husband exhibited complete hostility in direction of them.
“The respondent (wife) is still ready and willing to take care of her husband and does not wish to leave him alone at this stage of life. She has also expressed her sentiments that she does not want to die with the stigma of being a ‘divorcee’ woman. In contemporary society, it may not constitute a stigma but here we are concerned with the respondent’s own sentiment,” the bench stated, in its order dated October 10.
It stated, “Under the circumstances, considering and respecting the sentiments of the respondent wife, the court is of the opinion that exercising the discretion in favour of the appellant (husband) under Article 142 by dissolving the marriage between parties on the ground that the marriage has irretrievably broken down, would not be doing “full justice” to the parties, would rather be doing injustice to the respondent. In that view of the matter, we are not inclined to accept the submission of the appellant to dissolve the marriage on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage.”
Justice Trivedi, who penned the decision on behalf of the bench, famous that the husband, who’s a certified physician and retired from the Indian Air Force, had initiated divorce proceedings in March 1996 underneath the Hindu Marriage Act on grounds of ‘cruelty’ and ‘desertion’ by his spouse, a retired trainer.
The man alleged that his estranged spouse had handled him cruelly and abandoned him by not becoming a member of him when he was transferred to Madras, and thereafter not caring for him although he had a coronary heart drawback.
He had additional claimed the spouse had made complaints to the Air Force authorities in opposition to him to malign his picture and these have been the acts of ‘cruelty’, entitling him to a decree of divorce.
He submitted within the prime courtroom that they’ve been staying individually for the reason that time he had filed the divorce petition within the district courtroom, and the wedding having been irretrievably damaged down, the apex courtroom ought to train its plenary powers underneath Article 142 of the Constitution and grant a decree of divorce.
On the opposite hand, the spouse submitted within the prime courtroom that she being an aged girl, didn’t need to die with the stigma of a “divorcee” and he or she had made all efforts to respect the sacred relationship between the events all by way of out and remains to be able to take care of her husband with the help of her son.
She submitted {that a} mere lengthy interval of separation couldn’t tantamount to irretrievable breakdown of the wedding and her husband had didn’t make out any floor both of ‘cruelty’ or ‘desertion’.
The spouse urged the highest courtroom to not intervene with the order of the excessive courtroom, which has accepted her plea of not granting divorce.
The bench stated the truth that each the events are within the “late evening of their lives”, the courtroom had anticipated them to sit down collectively and discover the opportunity of an amicable settlement.
The effort having failed, the courtroom determined to adjudicate the matter on advantage, the bench stated.
Dealing with the allegations of ‘cruelty’ and ‘desertion’ levelled by the husband, the bench stated it was taking a view just like the excessive courtroom as he has didn’t show that his spouse had handled him with ‘cruelty’ or had ‘abandoned’ him.
The couple had married in line with Sikh rites on March 10, 1963 at Amritsar and had three youngsters – two daughters and one son.
The relations between them have been regular however acrimony appeared to have developed when the husband was posted at Madras in January 1984 and the spouse didn’t be part of him, and most well-liked to remain initially along with her in-laws and son, the bench famous.
The prime courtroom additional famous that regardless of honest efforts having been made by the events, the variations and disputes couldn’t be resolved, which in the end led the husband to file divorce proceedings on March 12, 1996, earlier than the district courtroom.
Follow The New Indian Express channel on WhatsApp
NEW DELHI: Bringing down the curtains on a 27-year-old marital discord, the Supreme Court refused to grant divorce to a few within the “late evening of their lives” saying the establishment of marriage occupies an necessary place and performs a key position within the society.
The prime courtroom stated regardless of the growing pattern of submitting divorce proceedings in courts, the establishment of marriage remains to be thought of to be a pious, non secular and invaluable emotional life-net between {couples} within the Indian society.
A bench of justices Aniruddha Bose and Bela M Trivedi dismissed the attraction filed by a 89-year-old man in opposition to the choice of the Punjab and Haryana High Court reversing a Chandigarh’s district courtroom order granting divorce to him. His spouse is aged 82.googletag.cmd.push(perform() googletag.show(‘div-gpt-ad-8052921-2’); );
“In our opinion, one should not be oblivious to the fact that the institution of marriage occupies an important place and plays an important role in society…It is governed not only by the letters of law but by social norms as well. So many other relationships stem from and thrive on the matrimonial relationships in society. Therefore, it would not be desirable to accept the formula of ‘irretrievable breakdown of marriage’ as a strait-jacket formula for the grant of relief of divorce under Article 142 of the Constitution of India,” the bench stated.
The prime courtroom famous the spouse all all through her life has maintained the sacred relationship since 1963 and has taken care of her three youngsters even if her husband exhibited complete hostility in direction of them.
“The respondent (wife) is still ready and willing to take care of her husband and does not wish to leave him alone at this stage of life. She has also expressed her sentiments that she does not want to die with the stigma of being a ‘divorcee’ woman. In contemporary society, it may not constitute a stigma but here we are concerned with the respondent’s own sentiment,” the bench stated, in its order dated October 10.
It stated, “Under the circumstances, considering and respecting the sentiments of the respondent wife, the court is of the opinion that exercising the discretion in favour of the appellant (husband) under Article 142 by dissolving the marriage between parties on the ground that the marriage has irretrievably broken down, would not be doing “full justice” to the parties, would rather be doing injustice to the respondent. In that view of the matter, we are not inclined to accept the submission of the appellant to dissolve the marriage on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage.”
Justice Trivedi, who penned the decision on behalf of the bench, famous that the husband, who’s a certified physician and retired from the Indian Air Force, had initiated divorce proceedings in March 1996 underneath the Hindu Marriage Act on grounds of ‘cruelty’ and ‘desertion’ by his spouse, a retired trainer.
The man alleged that his estranged spouse had handled him cruelly and abandoned him by not becoming a member of him when he was transferred to Madras, and thereafter not caring for him although he had a coronary heart drawback.
He had additional claimed the spouse had made complaints to the Air Force authorities in opposition to him to malign his picture and these have been the acts of ‘cruelty’, entitling him to a decree of divorce.
He submitted within the prime courtroom that they’ve been staying individually for the reason that time he had filed the divorce petition within the district courtroom, and the wedding having been irretrievably damaged down, the apex courtroom ought to train its plenary powers underneath Article 142 of the Constitution and grant a decree of divorce.
On the opposite hand, the spouse submitted within the prime courtroom that she being an aged girl, didn’t need to die with the stigma of a “divorcee” and he or she had made all efforts to respect the sacred relationship between the events all by way of out and remains to be able to take care of her husband with the help of her son.
She submitted {that a} mere lengthy interval of separation couldn’t tantamount to irretrievable breakdown of the wedding and her husband had didn’t make out any floor both of ‘cruelty’ or ‘desertion’.
The spouse urged the highest courtroom to not intervene with the order of the excessive courtroom, which has accepted her plea of not granting divorce.
The bench stated the truth that each the events are within the “late evening of their lives”, the courtroom had anticipated them to sit down collectively and discover the opportunity of an amicable settlement.
The effort having failed, the courtroom determined to adjudicate the matter on advantage, the bench stated.
Dealing with the allegations of ‘cruelty’ and ‘desertion’ levelled by the husband, the bench stated it was taking a view just like the excessive courtroom as he has didn’t show that his spouse had handled him with ‘cruelty’ or had ‘abandoned’ him.
The couple had married in line with Sikh rites on March 10, 1963 at Amritsar and had three youngsters – two daughters and one son.
The relations between them have been regular however acrimony appeared to have developed when the husband was posted at Madras in January 1984 and the spouse didn’t be part of him, and most well-liked to remain initially along with her in-laws and son, the bench famous.
The prime courtroom additional famous that regardless of honest efforts having been made by the events, the variations and disputes couldn’t be resolved, which in the end led the husband to file divorce proceedings on March 12, 1996, earlier than the district courtroom. Follow The New Indian Express channel on WhatsApp
