01Facts
The appellant-husband and respondent-wife have lived separately since 2003.
¶ 5The husband alleged constant harassment and scandalous allegations by the wife, which led to the loss of his job abroad and forced relocation to India.
¶ 5Despite providing over Rs. 40,00,000 for the upkeep of the wife and daughter over the years, the parties remained estranged.
¶ 6The appellant moved the Supreme Court after the High Court of Andhra Pradesh upheld the Family Court’s dismissal of his divorce petition.
¶ 4During the proceedings, the husband offered an additional one-time settlement of Rs. 60,00,000, while the wife opposed the divorce citing societal pressure, despite an inability to explain how the relationship could be restored.
¶ 6, 802Issues
i.1. Whether the marriage between the parties had irretrievably broken down, necessitating the exercise of extraordinary powers to grant a decree of divorce.
¶ 8, 10ii.2. Whether a decree of divorce can be granted despite the opposition of one spouse in the interest of justice.
¶ 10, 1103Law Applied
Article 142 of the Constitution of India, which allows the Supreme Court to pass any order necessary for doing "complete justice" in any cause or matter.
¶ 11The judicial doctrine of irretrievable breakdown of marriage, where a marriage is considered "dead for all practical purposes" and continuing the legal bond would be futile.
¶ 1004Reasoning
The Court observed that the parties had been separated for over two decades (since 2003), establishing a total lack of emotional or marital bond.
¶ 5The Court noted that the respondent-wife’s opposition to the divorce was based on societal pressure rather than a genuine possibility of reconciliation, which she could not satisfactorily explain when queried.
¶ 8The Court reasoned that forcing a relationship to continue through judicial proceedings is impossible when stances are "absolutely hard and totally inflexible".
¶ 10The Court took an objective and "realistic view," determining that the marriage was functionally dead and that granting a divorce was necessary to allow both parties to move forward with their lives.
¶ 10, 11To balance the equities, the Court tied the dissolution to a significant financial settlement to ensure the wife's future maintenance.
¶ 1205Holding
The Court answered the issues in the affirmative, granting a decree of divorce on the grounds of irretrievable breakdown of marriage under Article 142.
¶ 11The appellant must pay the respondent Rs. 60,00,000 within two months; the Registry must release the deposited Rs. 68,00,000 plus accrued interest (approx. Rs. 75,00,000) to the respondent within two weeks; the daughter’s rights to the appellant’s estate and ancestral property remain intact, and the appellant must contribute to her marriage expenses; and pending litigation in Hyderabad (FCA No. 93/2019) stands quashed.
¶ 12-15Original Court PDF
Gopalakrishna SurapanenivsAnuradha Surpaneni Maiden
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
