Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage (Hindu Law)

Introduction    

The concept of irretrievable breakdown of marriage refers to a situation where the marriage between two people has completely failed, leaving no reasonable chance of reconciliation. This concept shifts the focus from assigning blame for the failure of the marriage to acknowledging its end.

The concept was pioneered in New Zealand in 1920, allowing for divorce petitions based on a three-year separation. The theory posits that when a marital relationship deteriorates beyond reconciliation, the marriage should be legally terminated, as upholding shared rights and responsibilities becomes unjustifiable under such circumstances.

Understanding Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage

• Irretrievable breakdown of marriage is a legal term that describes a situation where a marriage has failed beyond repair, indicating that the couple can no longer live together as husband and wife with no hope for reconciliation.
• This condition typically arises when spouses have lived separately for an extended period, making it clear that there is no chance of restoring their relationship. In many jurisdictions, this concept serves as grounds for divorce, recognizing the practical reality that maintaining the marriage is untenable.
• In India, while there is no explicit legislative provision for irretrievable breakdown under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA), the Supreme Court has developed a framework for granting divorce based on this principle.
• Factors considered by the courts include the duration of cohabitation, the time since the last cohabitation, allegations made by each party, prior legal orders, attempts at reconciliation, and the length of separation, typically over six years.

Historical Context

• Traditionally, divorce laws required one spouse to demonstrate fault such as cruelty or adultery leading to a blame-oriented approach. This method often prolonged emotional suffering for both parties.
• The concept of irretrievable breakdown was first recognized in Lodder v. Lodde[1] and later acknowledged in India in Saroj Rani v. Sudarshan Kumar Chadha[2], suggesting that a divorce could be granted when a marriage has irretrievably broken down.
• However, courts cannot grant divorce solely on this ground due to the absence of explicit statutory provision under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
• Subsequent rulings, such as in V. Bhagat v. D. Bhagat[3], reaffirmed that while irretrievable breakdown could be considered, it is not a standalone ground for divorce.

Shift Towards Irretrievable Breakdown

• Irretrievable breakdown of marriage represents a significant shift in how divorce is approached, moving away from fault and towards recognizing that sometimes relationships simply cannot be salvaged.
• While many countries have adopted this concept, India has not yet formally recognized it under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. However, Indian courts have begun to acknowledge this principle in various judgments.
• One landmark case is Naveen Kohli vs. Neelu Kohli[4], where the Supreme Court of India acknowledged the irretrievable breakdown of marriage. In this case, the husband faced severe abuse from his wife, leading the court to grant a divorce. The judgment underscored the necessity for legal provisions recognizing irretrievable breakdown as a valid ground for divorce.
• In K. Srinivas Rao vs. D.A. Deepa[5], the court further affirmed that when a couple has lived apart for a significant time with no hope of reconciliation, irretrievable breakdown can be cited as grounds for divorce. This case emphasized that compelling couples to remain married under such circumstances would only prolong their suffering.
• The Supreme Court highlighted a case where the Family Court granted a divorce decree to a husband who was solely responsible for the marital breakdown. Despite the wife’s appeal challenging the reduction of permanent alimony by the High Court, the Supreme Court emphasized that the husband should not benefit from the dissolution of the marriage he caused. The Court noted that a marriage’s breakdown cannot be used advantageously by the party responsible for it. Justice Surya Kant and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan made these observations in the matter of Smt Prabhavathi @ Prabhamani v. Lakshmeesha M C.
• The Court stated that the concept of irretrievable breakdown of marriage cannot be used to the advantage of a party who is solely responsible for damaging the marital relationship. It noted that the respondent (husband) had subjected the appellant to extreme cruelty over the years and never came forward to assist in securing a better future for their son. The Court criticized the mechanical manner in which the Family Court repeatedly passed divorce decrees against the appellant, suggesting a lack of sensitivity and potentially indicating prejudice against her. The Court opined that lower courts should not have accorded any premium to the respondent’s own misdemeanours.

Factors Considered by the Court

When assessing whether a marriage has irretrievably broken down, the court considers several factors, including:

• The period for which the parties had cohabited after marriage.
• When the parties had last cohabited.
• The nature of allegations made by each spouse and their family members.
• The orders passed in the previous legal proceedings and their impact on the personal relationship.
• The number of attempts at reconciliation.
• The separation period is also critical; if a couple has been living apart for a significant time, often six years or more, it strengthens the argument for irretrievable breakdown.

Current Legal Status in India

• Despite the progress in judicial acknowledgment, irretrievable breakdown is not formally recognized under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
• The Law Commission of India has recommended its inclusion multiple times, notably in its 71st Report in 1978 and again in 2009, but these recommendations remain unadopted by the legislature.
• In Ms. Jorden Diengdeh v. S.S. Chopra[6], the Supreme Court suggested comprehensive reforms to marriage laws, including the introduction of irretrievable breakdown as a valid ground for divorce.
• The Marriage Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2010 aimed to incorporate this ground but has not been enacted. Currently, under the HMA, divorce by mutual consent requires a joint petition and a mandatory separation period.
• In 2023, the Supreme Court addressed the issue again in Shilpa Sailesh vs. Varun Sreenivasan[7]. This case explored whether the court could grant a divorce based on irretrievable breakdown even if one spouse opposed it. The court highlighted its powers under Article 142[8] of the Constitution to ensure “complete justice,” demonstrating its willingness to adapt legal frameworks to address the realities of failed marriages.

Article 142[9] of the Indian Constitution grants the Supreme Court special powers to ensure justice, even in cases where existing laws do not provide clear guidance. For instance, the court can waive the mandatory separation period if it believes that the couple has genuinely attempted reconciliation without success. This flexibility allows the court to prioritize the well-being of the individuals involved.

Implications of Recognizing Irretrievable Breakdown

Recognizing irretrievable breakdown as a valid ground for divorce would represent a significant shift in Indian divorce laws. It would facilitate more amicable separations, reducing the emotional toll on both parties by allowing individuals to seek divorce without the burden of proving fault.

Conclusion

Embracing the principle of irretrievable breakdown aligns with the broader notion of no-fault divorce, allowing couples to dissolve their marriages without needing to assign blame. As India evolves in its legal perspectives on marriage and divorce, formal recognition of irretrievable breakdown could lead to a more compassionate and efficient process for those seeking to end their marriages.

---

[1] 1921, New Zealand Law Reports, 876.

[2] 1984 AIR 1562.

[3] 1994 AIR 710.

[4] AIR 2006 SC 1675.

[5] AIR 2013 SC 2176.

[6] 1985 AIR 935.

[7] (2023) 05 SC CK 0001.

[8] The Indian Constitution, art. 142.

[9] Ibid.