Irritable Breakdown of Marriage under the Hindu Marriage Act: A Comprehensive Analysis considering Supreme Court Judgment in case of Shilpa Sailesh vs Varun Sreenivasan.

Introduction: 

Marriage, a sacred institution in Hinduism, is a bond that joins two individuals in a lifelong commitment. However, as societal dynamics evolve, marriages often encounter challenges that lead to their breakdown. The concept of "irritable breakdown" of marriage, though not explicitly mentioned in the Hindu Marriage Act, has gained significance in recent times. We here aim to explore the notion of an irritable breakdown of marriage under the Hindu Marriage Act, analysing its legal implications and showcasing its relevance through pertinent case laws.

Marriage constitutes the very basis of social organization. Manusmiriti chapter 9 deals with marriage in Hindus and according to it marriage is regarded as as a sacrament- indissoluble and eternal. As per Manu that neither by sale nor by desertion is the wife released from the husband was applied only to women and not men.

न निष्क्रयविसर्गाभ्यां भर्तुर्भार्या विमुच्यते ।
एवं धर्मं विजानीमः प्राक् प्रजापतिनिर्मितम् ॥ ४६ ॥

na niṣkrayavisargābhyāṃ bharturbhāryā vimucyate |
evaṃ dharmaṃ vijānīmaḥ prāk prajāpatinirmitam || 46 ||

Either by sale or by repudiation the wife is not released from her husband; such is the law that we know, as originally propounded by Prajapati. —(46)

Marriage is an institution in the maintenance of which the public at large is deeply interested. It is the foundation of the family and in turn of the society without which no civilization can exist. A marriage solemnized, whether before or after the commencement of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 can only be dissolved by a decree of divorce on any of the grounds enumerated in Section 13 of the Act. Till the time a Hindu marriage is dissolved under the Act, none of the spouses can contract second marriage.

Thus, it is obvious from the various provisions of the Act that modern Hindu Law strictly enforces monogamy. Even under Muslim Law plurality of marriage is not unconditionally conferred upon the husband. Muslim law as traditionally interpreted and applied in India permits more than one marriage during the subsistence of one and another though the capacity to do justice between co-wives in law is a condition precedent.

As per the Hindu Law administered by courts in India divorce was not recognized as a means to put an end to marriage, which was always considered to be a sacrament, with only exception where it is recognized by custom. Public policy, good morals, and the interests of society were considered to require and ensure that, if at all, severance should be allowed only in the manner and for the reason or cause specified in law.

One of the causes expressly recognized by law is the legal sanction of a valid custom to dissolve a marriage. Thus, the rules of dissolution of marriage and monogamy are subject to a valid custom to the contrary. This shows that the law relating to marriage and divorce of Hindus has an inverse relationship with a recognized valid custom.

Understanding Irritable Breakdown of Marriage:

The Hindu Marriage Act, of 1955, is the legal framework governing Hindu marriages in India. While the Act specifies various grounds for divorce such as cruelty, adultery, desertion, conversion, and mental disorders.

Section 13(1) in The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

(1) Any marriage solemnised, whether before or after the commencement of this Act, may, on a petition presented by either the husband or the wife, be dissolved by a decree of divorce on the ground that the other party.

(i) has, after the solemnisation of the marriage, had voluntary sexual intercourse with any person other than his or her spouse; or]

       (ia) has, after the solemnisation of the marriage, treated the petitioner with cruelty; or]

       (ib) has deserted the petitioner for a continuous period of not less than two years immediately preceding the presentation of the petition; or]

(ii) has ceased to be a Hindu by conversion to another religion; or

(iii) has been incurably of unsound mind or has been suffering continuously or intermittently from mental disorder of such a kind and to such an extent that the petitioner cannot reasonably be expected to live with the respondent.

Explanation. In this clause,

(a) the expression mental disorder means mental illness, arrested or incomplete development of mind, psychopathic disorder or any other disorder or disability of mind and includes schizophrenia;

(b) the expression psychopathic disorder means a persistent disorder or disability of mind (whether or not including sub-normality of intelligence) which results in abnormally aggressive or seriously irresponsible conduct on the part of the other party, and whether or not it requires or is susceptible to medical treatment; or]

(iv) has 18 [***] been suffering from a virulent and incurable form of leprosy; or

(v) has 18 [***] been suffering from venereal disease in a communicable form; or

(vi) has renounced the world by entering any religious order; or

(vi) has not been heard of as being alive for a period of seven years or more by those persons who would naturally have heard of it, had that party been alive; 19 [***] 20 [ Explanation. In this sub-section, the expression desertion means the desertion of the petitioner by the other party to the marriage without reasonable cause and without the consent or against the wish of such party and includes the wilful neglect of the petitioner by the other party to the marriage, and its grammatical variations and cognate expressions shall be construed accordingly.] 21 [***]

 

 

 

 The term "irritable breakdown" is not explicitly mentioned. However, Indian courts have recognized the concept as a ground for divorce under Section 13(1) (ia) of the Act, which deals with cruelty. Irritable breakdown refers to a state where the marriage becomes unbearable due to continuous strife and discord between spouses, rendering cohabitation impossible.

 1.      Legal Implications of Irritable Breakdown:

The evolving concept of irritable breakdown has been subject to judicial interpretation, enabling couples to seek divorce even if none of the specified grounds are met. Courts have held that irritable breakdown could be treated as a form of cruelty, thereby justifying divorce. The Supreme Court's landmark judgment in the case of Naveen Kohli v. Neelu Kohli (2006) recognized that if the parties have been living separately for a considerable period and their marriage has irretrievably broken down, it would be unjust to compel them to live together.

2.      Understanding Irritable Breakdown of Marriage:

The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, is the legal framework governing Hindu marriages in India. While the Act specifies various grounds for divorce such as cruelty, adultery, desertion, conversion, and mental disorders, the term "irritable breakdown" is not explicitly mentioned. However, Indian courts have recognized the concept as a ground for divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Act, which deals with cruelty. Irritable breakdown refers to a state where the marriage becomes unbearable due to continuous strife and discord between spouses, rendering cohabitation impossible.

 

3.      Recent Case Laws Illustrating Irritable Breakdown:

1.      Amardeep Singh v. Harveen Kaur (2017): In this case, the Supreme Court held that if the parties have been living separately for a period exceeding the statutory period required for divorce, it could be considered evidence of the irretrievable breakdown of the marriage.

2.      Navin Kohli v. Neelu Kohli (2006): This landmark judgment reiterated the principle that when there is no chance of reconciliation and the marriage has reached a point of no return, irritable breakdown can be considered as a ground for divorce.

3.      Kamal Rani v. S. Radha Krishnan (2019): The Delhi High Court held that irretrievable breakdown of marriage is a valid ground for divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act, even though it is not expressly mentioned in the statute.

4.      Shilpa Sailesh vs Varun Sreenivasan, Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 375-Hon’ble Supreme Court held that it can dissolve marriage  on the ground of irritable breakdown of marriage invoking powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India  but this discretionary power is to be exercised to do ‘complete justice’ to the parties, wherein this Court is satisfied that the facts established show that the marriage has completely failed and there is no possibility that the parties will cohabit together, and continuation of the formal legal relationship is unjustified. (Para 42(iii)).In this Judgment, certain broad factors, which are illustrative were laid down when the court will be justified in exercising its power while considering the following :

                                  i.             the period of time the parties had cohabited after marriage.

                                ii.            when the parties had last cohabited.

                             iii.             the nature of allegations made by the parties against each other and their family members.

                              iv.             the orders passed in the legal proceedings from time to time, cumulative impact on the personal relationship.

                                v.            whether, and how many attempts were made to settle the disputes by intervention of the court or through mediation, and when the last attempt was made, etc.

                              vi.             The period of separation should be sufficiently long, and anything above six years or more will be a relevant factor.

The judgment clearly stated that the grant of divorce on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage by this Court is not a matter of right, but a discretion that is to be exercised with great care and caution.

"This Court should be fully convinced and satisfied that the marriage is totally unworkable, emotionally dead and beyond salvation and, therefore, dissolution of marriage is the right solution and the only way forward. That the marriage has irretrievably broken down is to be factually determined and firmly established".

·         Challenges and Criticisms:

The recognition of irritable breakdown as a ground for divorce has not been without its challenges. Critics argue that the lack of a clear definition and criteria for determining irritable breakdown may lead to arbitrary decisions by courts. Additionally, the concept might provide a convenient escape route for couples unwilling to comply with statutory provisions.

·         Balancing Traditional Values and Modern Realities:

While the Hindu Marriage Act aims to preserve the sanctity of marriage, it must also adapt to the changing social landscape. The recognition of irritable breakdown reflects a necessary shift towards accommodating the complexities of modern relationships.

·         Conclusion:

The concept of the irritable breakdown of marriage, though not explicitly provided for in the Hindu Marriage Act, has emerged as a significant legal consideration. Courts have recognized it as a form of cruelty, justifying divorce when the marriage becomes unbearable due to continuous discord. Recent case laws have solidified the concept's validity. However, as the legal landscape evolves, striking a balance between traditional values and modern realities remains essential. The notion of irritable breakdown underscores the imperative for legal frameworks to adapt to the evolving nature of relationships, ultimately promoting justice and fairness in matters of matrimonial disputes.