The bench of Justices Aniruddha Bose and Bela M Trivedi denied an 89-year-old man to divorce his 82-year-old wife. Husband filed Divorce Petition in 1996 before the Court at Chandigarh.

While answering the question "Should the irretrievable breakdown of marriage necessarily result in the dissolution of marriage in exercise of powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, when such is not a ground for divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act 1955?”, it answered that "irretrievable breakdown of marriage" cannot be viewed as a straightjacket formula to always grant divorce.

The bench observed that, "institution of marriage occupies an important place and plays an important role in the society. Despite the increasing trend of filing the Divorce proceedings in the courts of law, the institution of marriage is still considered to be a pious, spiritual, and invaluable emotional life-net between the husband and the wife in the Indian society. It is governed not only by the letters of law but by the social norms as well. So many other relationships stem from and thrive on the matrimonial relationships in the society. Therefore, it would not be desirable to accept the formula of “irretrievable break down of marriage” as a strait-jacket formula for the grant of relief of divorce under Article 142 of the Constitution of India."

The bench also ruled on the issue of Curelty that, "the crux of the various decisions of this Court on the interpretation of the word “cruelty” is  hat it has to be construed and interpreted considering the type of life the parties are accustomed to; or their economic and social conditions and their culture and human values to which they attach importance. Each case has to be decided on its own merits."

Applying the law in the facts of this case, the court noted that so far as the facts of the present case are concerned, as stated earlier, the appellant-husband is aged about 89 years and respondent-wife is aged about 82 years. The respondent all throughout her life has maintained the sacred relationship since 1963 and has taken care of her three children all these years, despite the fact that the appellant-husband had exhibited total hostility towards them. The respondent 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 to be stigma but here we are concerned with the respondent’s own sentiment. 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 under Article 142 by dissolving the marriage between parties on the ground that the marriage has irretrievably broken down, would not be doing “complete 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 break down of marriage."

Case Details:-

CIVIL APPEAL NO.2045 OF 2011
DR. NIRMAL SINGH PANESAR
VERSUS
MRS. PARAMJIT KAUR PANESAR @ AJINDER KAUR PANESAR