SH. RAKESH RAMANversusSMT. KAVITA

552                      [2023]REPORTS
               SUPREME COURT    3 S.C.R. 552               [2023] 3 S.C.R.


A                           SH. RAKESH RAMAN
                                        v.
                                 SMT. KAVITA
                         (Civil Appeal No. 2012 of 2013)
B                               APRIL 26, 2023
          [SUDHANSHU DHULIA AND J. B. PARDIWALA, JJ.]
            Hindu Marriage Act, 1955: s. 13(1)(ia) and (ib) – Divorce –
      Grounds of cruelty and desertion – Marital discord between the
      parties – Petition for dissolution of marriage by the husband on the
C
      ground that the wife treated him with cruelty and deserted him,that
      there was no co-habitation between the parties, and that the wife
      had filed multiple false and frivolous criminal cases against him –
      Trial court passed a decree of divorce holding that the wife had
      deserted the husband and had meted out cruel behaviour against
D     him – However, the High Court set aside the order – On appeal,
      held: There are bitter allegations of cruelty and desertion from both
      the sides, the marital relationship has broken down irretrievably,
      there is a long separation of 25 years, absence of cohabitation, no
      child out of the wedlock, with multiple court cases between the
      parties – Repeated efforts for reconciliation by the Courts has failed
E
      – Marital relationship which has only become more bitter and
      acrimonious over the years, does nothing but inflicts cruelty on
      both the sides – To keep the façade of this broken marriage alive
      would be doing injustice to both the parties – Marriage being
      irretrievably broken down spells cruelty, thus, a ground for
F     dissolution of marriage u/s.13(1)(ia) – Judgement by the High Court
      set aside and decree of divorce is granted.
            Allowing the appeal, the Court
            HELD: 1.1 The husband and wife, have been living
      separately since the last 25 years. There is no child out of the
G     wedlock. There are bitter allegations of cruelty and desertion
      from both the sides and multiple litigations between the two in
      the last more than 25 years. This embittered relationship between
      the appellant and the respondent which has not witnessed any
      moment of peace for the last 25 years is a marital relationship
H     only on paper. The fact is that this relationship has broken down
                                       552
             SH. RAKESH RAMAN v. SMT. KAVITA                              553


irretrievably long back. Other aspect to be considered is the fact        A
that for the last 25 years the appellant and respondent, are living
separately, and have not cohabitated. There is absolutely no scope
of reconciliation between the parties. There is in fact no bond
between the two and as the Law Commission in its 71st report
said about such a marriage, which is a marriage which has de
                                                                          B
facto broken down, and only needs a de jure recognition by the
law. The same was reiterated by the Law Commission in its 217th
report. [Paras 10, 12][558-A-B, E-F]
       1.2 The view taken by the High Court that mere filing of
criminal cases by the wife does not constitute cruelty as what has
                                                                          C
also to be seen are the circumstances under which cases were
filed, is a finding is not to be disregarded totally, in fact as a pure
proposition of law it may be correct, but then the entire facts of
the case are to be closely examined. When the facts as they exist
are taken into consideration, the continuation of this marriage
would mean continuation of cruelty, which each one inflicts on            D
the other. Irretrievable breakdown of a marriage may not be a
ground for dissolution of marriage, under the Hindu Marriage
Act, but cruelty is. A marriage can be dissolved by a decree of
divorce, inter alia, on the ground when the other party “has, after
the solemnization of the marriage treated the petitioner with             E
cruelty”. A marital relationship which has only become more bitter
and acrimonious over the years, does nothing but inflicts cruelty
on both the sides. To keep the façade of this broken marriage
alive would be doing injustice to both the parties. A marriage
which has broken down irretrievably, spells cruelty to both the
parties, as in such a relationship each party is treating the other       F
with cruelty. It is therefore a ground for dissolution of marriage
under Section 13(1)(ia). [Para 16][560-D-G]
      1.3 The matrimonial bond is completely broken and is
beyond repair. This relationship must end as its continuation is
causing cruelty on both the sides. The long separation and absence        G
of cohabitation and the complete breakdown of all meaningful
bonds and the existing bitterness between the two, has to be
read as cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the 1955 Act. Therefore,
in a given case, where the marital relationship has broken down
                                                                          H
554            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                      [2023] 3 S.C.R.


A     irretrievably, where there is a long separation and absence of
      cohabitation (as in the instant case for the last 25 years), with
      multiple Court cases between the parties; then continuation of
      such a ‘marriage’ would only mean giving sanction to cruelty which
      each is inflicting on the other. A dissolution of this marriage would
      affect only the two parties as there is no child out of the wedlock.
B
      [Para 18][562-C-E]
            1.4 Under these circumstances, the order of the trial court
      is upheld, though for different grounds given and the order of the
      High Court is set aside and a decree of divorce is granted to the
      appellant/husband. Their marriage shall stand dissolved. However,
C     considering the fact that the appellant/husband is an employee in
      Life Insurance Corporation present salary is more than
      Rs.1,00,000/- (One Lakh Rupees) per month, it is deemed fit
      and proper that he gives an amount of Rs.30,00,000/- (Thirty Lakh
      Rupees) to the respondent/wife as permanent alimony. [Paras
D     19, 20][562-F-H]
            Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh (2007) 4 SCC 511- relied
            on.
            Naveen Kohli v. Neelu Kohli (2006) 4 SCC 558; K.
            Srinivas Rao v. D.A. Deepa (2013) 5 SCC 226; R.
E           Srinivas Kumar v. R. Shametha (2019) 9 SCC 409;
            Munish Kakkar v. Nidhi Kakkar (2020) 14 SCC 657;
            Neha Tyagi v. Lieutenant Colonel Deepak Tyagi (2022)
            3 SCC 86 - referred to.
                             Case Law Reference
F
      (2006) 4 SCC 558                referred to               Para 11
      (2013) 5 SCC 226                referred to               Para 11
      (2019) 9 SCC 409                referred to               Para 13
      (2020) 14 SCC 657               referred to               Para 13
G
      (2022) 3 SCC 86                 referred to               Para 13
      (2007) 4 SCC 511                relied on                 Para 16


H
              SH. RAKESH RAMAN v. SMT. KAVITA                                   555


      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2012                       A
of 2013.
      From the Judgment and Order dated 08.04.2011 of the High Court
of Delhi at New Delhi in MATAP No. 52 of 2009.
     S K Rungta, Sr. Adv., Arvind Kumar Gupta, Naresh Daksh,
Abhiesumat Gupta, Ranjan Bhoria, C Prakash, Advs. for the Appellant.            B

     S. K. Bhalla, S. R. Setia, Ms. Anjali Tewari, Advs. for the
Respondent.
      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
      SUDHANSHU DHULIA, J.                                                      C
       1. This appeal arises out of a divorce proceeding initiated by the
appellant under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, (hereinafter
referred to as the “Act”), in the Court of Additional District Judge (North),
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi. His suit was decreed and the marriage was
dissolved by the Order of the Additional District Judge (North) dated           D
02.05.2009. The respondent/wife, then, filed an appeal before the Delhi
High Court which has set aside the order of the Trial Court and dismissed
the petition of the husband. Aggrieved by the said Order, the appellant/
husband has filed a Special Leave Petition before this Court, in which
leave was granted on 26.02.2013.
                                                                                E
       2. The appellant and the respondent were married under Hindu
rituals and customs in Delhi, on 16.04.1994. Regrettably, it did not take
long for the marital discord to set in their marital life. The appellant’s
case is that his wife was not happy in their small dwelling, and used
offensive, even abusive language against him. It has also been alleged
                                                                                F
that in September, 1994, she got her pregnancy terminated, without any
prior intimation to her husband (this allegation was denied by the wife
and could never be proved against her). It was in September 1994, again
when she left her matrimonial home, but due to the efforts made by the
well-wishers and relatives, they started living together from March 1995
onwards. This again did not last long, as on 16.02.1998 she left her            G
matrimonial house, and lodged a complaint with the local police on 16/
17.02.1998. In March 1998, she agreed to join her husband, on the
condition that the appellant would take another accommodation and
consequently in April, 1998 another house was taken on rent, and the
two started living together in the new house. But then, on 24.08.1998,
                                                                                H
556             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2023] 3 S.C.R.


A     the appellant alleges that he was beaten by his wife and her brother. On
      29.11.1998, he was kept out of his own house for the entire night. On
      17.12.1998 she left her matrimonial house and lodged an FIR against the
      appellant and his brother, under Section 498A/406 of the Indian Penal
      Code, at Anand Parbat Police Station, New Delhi. The appellant and his
      brother were arrested the same day, while they were attending a marriage
B
      ceremony, and this was done in the presence of 15 to 20 of his friends.
      Later the two were released on bail, though the wife persisted with the
      matter and even moved an application for cancellation of their bail. The
      wife then filed a complaint under Sections 323 and 324 read with Section
      34 IPC against the appellant/husband and his family members, however,
C     they were subsequently discharged from the case. The respondent also
      initiated proceedings against appellant under Section 107 read with
      Section 150 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. She then filed a petition,
      under Section 18 of Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956, for her
      maintenance.
D            3. Left by his wife and burdened with multiple litigations slapped
      on him, the appellant took the decision to end the matrimonial relations.
      He thus moved his petition for dissolution of marriage under Section
      13(1) (ia) & (ib) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, before the Additional
      District Judge, North Delhi on 20.09.2002, inter alia, on the facts, as
      narrated in the preceding paragraph.
E
             4. The respondent denies that she ever ‘deserted’ her husband or
      inflicted any cruelty on him. Her counsel would submit that she only
      took recourse to legal avenues available to her under the law. She alleges
      that her ornaments which were her ‘stridhan’, were taken away and
      were never returned, and how she was forced to file a case against her
F     husband under Sections 498A & 406 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). It
      was also her case that she had made every possible effort for
      reconciliation, but due to the non-cooperation of the appellant, all efforts
      towards mediation and settlement resulted in failure. She has denied
      that she had terminated her pregnancy.
G            5. The Family Court on 15.10.2003 framed issues on cruelty and
      desertion. The Trial Court gave the findings on cruelty as well as desertion
      in favour of the husband and a decree for the dissolution of marriage
      was passed.
             6. The High Court in appeal, came to the conclusion that the mere
H     fact that the respondent did not allow her husband to enter his house on
              SH. RAKESH RAMAN v. SMT. KAVITA                                  557
                   [SUDHANSHU DHULIA, J.]

29.11.1998, would not prove that it was her intention to bring cohabitation    A
permanently to an end and therefore the ground of dissolution of marriage
on desertion were not made out. As far as filing of various complaints
under Sections 323, 324 and 498A IPC are concerned, the High Court
was of the view that mere filing of such complaints, or their result in
acquittal would not amount to cruelty, as the wife was only exercising her
                                                                               B
options available to her under the law. Moreover, what has to be seen are
also the circumstances under which these complaints were filed.
      7. We have heard Mr. S.K. Rungta, learned Senior Advocate for
the appellant/husband and Mr. S.K. Bhalla learned Advocate for the
respondent/wife at length and perused the material on record.
                                                                               C
       8. This case has travelled from the Family Court to the High Court
and now finally to this Court. The decision of Delhi High Court is of
08.04.2011, which goes back to twelve years. We have to take into
consideration all the facts which are before us as of now. To our mind
the facts which we must take into account are: (i) that the “couple” is
now living separately for the last almost 25 years, and all these years        D
there has been no cohabitation between them. (ii) That there is no child
out of the wedlock, and the couple lived together as husband and wife
for barely 4 years. (iii) That repeated efforts by the Courts for
reconciliation or settlement have resulted in failure.
       9. At the very initial stage the Trial Court had sent the parties for   E
mediation, which did not succeed. This Court had also sent the two for
mediation, which failed. The case was again sent for settlement in the
Lok Adalat but with no results. On 11.04.2015, this Court again requested
the parties to explore possibilities of living together, but nothing
materialised. Then on 09.05.2015, this Court asked the parties to come         F
to some mutual settlement, but in vain. In other words, every single
effort of the Court and the mediators, towards a compromise or settlement
has led to a blind alley. Even now, before giving a formal hearing to the
parties we tried to gather the current situation from the parties. The
appellant has unequivocally stated that there is no room for any
compromise or settlement and he requests that a decision be made in            G
this case on its merits, whereas the counsel for the respondent apprised
this Court that the respondent would like to save her marriage and he
prays for mediation once again. He would also submit that no ground for
divorce has been made out and the well-considered decision of Delhi
High Court should be upheld.                                                   H
558             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2023] 3 S.C.R.


A           10. The husband and wife, who are before us have been living
      separately since the last 25 years. There is no child out of the wedlock.
      There are bitter allegations of cruelty and desertion from both the sides
      and multiple litigations between the two in the last more than 25 years.
      This embittered relationship between the appellant and the respondent
      which has not witnessed any moment of peace for the last 25 years is a
B
      marital relationship only on paper. The fact is that this relationship has
      broken down irretrievably long back.
             11. The High Court has taken a view that mere filing of criminal
      cases against the appellant-husband would not constitute cruelty. All the
C     same, the number of criminal cases filed by the respondent-wife against
      the appellant-husband are far too many which have been discussed above.
      All these cases have either resulted in discharge or acquittal of the
      appellant-husband, if not before the pronouncement of the Judgment of
      the Delhi High Court but definitely after the pronouncement of the
      Judgment of the Delhi High Court. Moreover, a three Judge Bench of
D     this Court in Naveen Kohli v. Neelu Kohli1 held that repeatedly filing
      of criminal cases by one party against the other in a matrimonial matter
      would amount to cruelty and the same was reiterated by a Division
      Bench of this Court in K. Srinivas Rao v. D.A. Deepa2.
              12. Other aspect which we must consider is the fact that for the
E     last 25 years the appellant and respondent, are living separately, and
      have not cohabitated. There is absolutely no scope of reconciliation
      between the parties. There is in fact no bond between the two and as
      the Law Commission in its 71st report said about such a marriage, which
      is a marriage which has de facto broken down, and only needs a de jure
F     recognition by the law. The same was reiterated by the Law Commission
      in its 217th report.
             13. Under similar circumstances, this Court in R. Srinivas Kumar
      v. R. Shametha3, Munish Kakkar v. Nidhi Kakkar4 and Neha Tyagi
      v. Lieutenant Colonel Deepak Tyagi 5 has held that an irretrievable
G     marriage is a marriage where husband and wife have been living

      1
        (2006) 4 SCC 558
      2
        (2013) 5 SCC 226
      3
        (2019) 9 SCC 409
      4
        (2020) 14 SCC 657
      5
H       (2022) 3 SCC 86
                 SH. RAKESH RAMAN v. SMT. KAVITA                                   559
                      [SUDHANSHU DHULIA, J.]

separately for a considerable period and there is absolutely no chance of          A
their living together again. In all the above cited three cases, this Court
in exercise of its power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India
has dissolved the marriage on the ground of irretrievable breakdown as
a ground, which otherwise does not exist under the Hindu Marriage Act.
      14. In Naveen Kohli (supra), a strong recommendation has been                B
made by this Court to the Union of India to consider adding irretrievable
breakdown down of a marriage as a ground for divorce under the Hindu
Marriage Act.
       15. The multiple Court battles between them and the repeated
failures in mediation and conciliation is at least testimony of this fact that     C
no bond now survive between the couple, it is indeed a marriage which
has broken down irretrievably.
       16. Matrimonial cases before the Courts pose a different challenge,
quite unlike any other, as we are dealing with human relationships with
its bundle of emotions, with all its faults and frailties. It is not possible in   D
every case to pin point to an act of “cruelty” or blameworthy conduct of
the spouse. The nature of relationship, the general behaviour of the parties
towards each other, or long separation between the two are relevant
factors which a Court must take into consideration. In Samar Ghosh v.
Jaya Ghosh6 a three judge Bench of this Court had dealt in detail as to
                                                                                   E
what would constitute cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Act. An
important guideline in the above decision is on the approach of a Court in
determining cruelty. What has to be examined here is the entire
matrimonial relationship, as cruelty may not be in a violent act or acts
but in a given case has to be gathered from injurious reproaches,
complaints, accusations, taunts, etc. The Court relied on the definition of        F
cruelty in matrimonial relationships in Halsbury’s Laws of England (Vol
13, 4th Edn, Para 1269, Pg 602) which must be reproduced here:
         “The general rule in all cases of cruelty is that the entire
         matrimonial relationship must be considered, and that rule is of
         special value when the cruelty consists not of violent acts but of        G
         injurious reproaches, complaints, accusations or taunts. In cases
         where no violence is averred, it is undesirable to consider judicial
         pronouncements with a view to creating certain categories of

6
    (2007) 4 SCC 511                                                               H
560                 SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2023] 3 S.C.R.


A               acts or conduct as having or lacking the nature or quality which
                renders them capable or incapable in all circumstances of
                amounting to cruelty; for it is the effect of the conduct rather
                than its nature which is of paramount importance in assessing a
                complaint of cruelty. Whether one spouse has been guilty of
                cruelty to the other is essentially a question of fact and previously
B
                decided cases have little, if any, value. The court should bear in
                mind the physical and mental condition of the parties as well as
                their social status, and should consider the impact of the
                personality and conduct of one spouse on the mind of the other,
                weighing all incidents and quarrels between the spouses from
C               that point of view; further, the conduct alleged must be examined
                in the light of the complainant’s capacity for endurance and the
                extent to which that capacity is known to the other spouse.
                Malevolent intention is not essential to cruelty but it is an
                important element where it exists.”
D             The view taken by the Delhi High Court in the present case
      that mere filing of criminal cases by the wife does not constitute cruelty
      as what has also to be seen are the circumstances under which cases
      were filed, is a finding we do not wish to disregard totally, in fact as a
      pure proposition of law it may be correct, but then we must also closely
      examine the entire facts of the case which are now before us. When
E     we take into consideration the facts as they exist today, we are
      convinced that continuation of this marriage would mean continuation
      of cruelty, which each now inflicts on the other. Irretrievable breakdown
      of a marriage may not be a ground for dissolution of marriage, under
      the Hindu Marriage Act, but cruelty is. A marriage can be dissolved by
F     a decree of divorce, inter alia, on the ground when the other party
      “has, after the solemnization of the marriage treated the petitioner with
      cruelty”7. In our considered opinion, a marital relationship which has
      only become more bitter and acrimonious over the years, does nothing
      but inflicts cruelty on both the sides. To keep the façade of this broken
      marriage alive would be doing injustice to both the parties. A marriage
G     which has broken down irretrievably, in our opinion spells cruelty to
      both the parties, as in such a relationship each party is treating the
      other with cruelty. It is therefore a ground for dissolution of marriage
      under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Act.

H     7
          Section 13 (1) (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
              SH. RAKESH RAMAN v. SMT. KAVITA                                     561
                   [SUDHANSHU DHULIA, J.]

      17. Cruelty has not been defined under the Act. All the same, the           A
context where it has been used, which is as a ground for dissolution of a
marriage would show that it has to be seen as a ‘human conduct’ and
‘behavior” in a matrimonial relationship. While dealing in the case of
Samar Ghosh (supra) this Court opined that cruelty can be physical as
well as mental: -                                                                 B
           “46…If it is physical, it is a question of fact and degree. If it is
          mental, the enquiry must begin as to the nature of the cruel
          treatment and then as to the impact of such treatment on the
          mind of the spouse. Whether it caused reasonable apprehension
          that it would be harmful or injurious to live with the other,           C
          ultimately, is a matter of inference to be drawn by taking into
          account the nature of the conduct and its effect on the
          complaining spouse.
      Cruelty can be even unintentional: -
                                                                                  D
          …The absence of intention should not make any difference in
          the case, if by ordinary sense in human affairs, the act
          complained of could otherwise be regarded as cruelty. Intention
          is not a necessary element in cruelty. The relief to the party
          cannot be denied on the ground that there has been no deliberate
                                                                                  E
          or wilful ill-treatment.”

       This Court though did ultimately give certain illustrations of mental
cruelty. Some of these are as follows:

          (i) On consideration of complete matrimonial life of the parties,
          acute mental pain, agony and suffering as would not make                F
          possible for the parties to live with each other could come
          within the broad parameters of mental cruelty.

          (xii) Unilateral decision of refusal to have intercourse for
          considerable period without there being any physical incapacity         G
          or valid reason may amount to mental cruelty.

          (xiii) Unilateral decision of either husband or wife after
          marriage not to have child from the marriage may amount to
          cruelty.
                                                                                  H
562             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2023] 3 S.C.R.


A               (xiv) Where there has been a long period of continuous
                separation, it may fairly be concluded that the matrimonial
                bond is beyond repair. The marriage becomes a fiction
                though supported by a legal tie. By refusing to sever
                that tie, the law in such cases, does not serve the sanctity
                of marriage; on the contrary, it shows scant regard for
B
                the feelings and emotions of the parties. In such like
                situations, it may lead to mental cruelty.
                                                            (emphasis supplied)
             18. We have a married couple before us who have barely stayed
C     together as a couple for four years and who have now been living
      separately for the last 25 years. There is no child out of the wedlock.
      The matrimonial bond is completely broken and is beyond repair. We
      have no doubt that this relationship must end as its continuation is causing
      cruelty on both the sides. The long separation and absence of
D     cohabitation and the complete breakdown of all meaningful bonds and
      the existing bitterness between the two, has to be read as cruelty under
      Section 13(1) (ia) of the 1955 Act. We therefore hold that in a given
      case, such as the one at hand, where the marital relationship has broken
      down irretrievably, where there is a long separation and absence of
      cohabitation (as in the present case for the last 25 years), with multiple
E     Court cases between the parties; then continuation of such a ‘marriage’
      would only mean giving sanction to cruelty which each is inflicting on
      the other. We are also conscious of the fact that a dissolution of this
      marriage would affect only the two parties as there is no child out of
      the wedlock.
F            19. Under these circumstances, we uphold the Order of the Trial
      Court, though for different grounds given by us in our order, and we set
      aside the Order of the High Court and grant a decree of divorce to the
      appellant/husband. Their marriage shall stand dissolved.
             20. However, considering the fact that the appellant/husband is
G     an employee in Life Insurance Corporation, as we have been informed
      at the Bar and his present salary is more than Rs.1,00,000/- (One Lakh
      Rupees) per month, we deem it fit and proper that he gives an amount of
      Rs.30,00,000/- (Thirty Lakh Rupees) to the respondent/wife as permanent
      alimony. This amount of Rs.30,00,000/- (Thirty Lakh Rupees) shall be
H     deposited in the name of the respondent, within a period of four weeks
                SH. RAKESH RAMAN v. SMT. KAVITA                                  563
                     [SUDHANSHU DHULIA, J.]

from today with the Registry of this Court. The decree of divorce shall          A
be made effective only from the date of such a deposit. On the event of
such deposit, the Registry after verifying the credentials of the respondent/
wife shall disburse the amount to the respondent/wife without further
reference to this Court.
        With the aforesaid directions, the appeal stands allowed.                B


Nidhi Jain                                                     Appeal allowed.
(Assisted by : Adiraj Bali, LCRA)


                                                                                 C




                                                                                 D




                                                                                 E




                                                                                 F




                                                                                 G




                                                                                 H