Irretrievable breakdown of marriage" refers to a situation where the marital relationship has deteriorated to such an extent that it cannot be salvaged or repaired. The concept of the irretrievable breakdown theory of marriage is a legal principle that has gained prominence in family law discussion Within the framework of the Hindu Marriage Act, of 1955, the grounds for divorce have traditionally been categorized under three theories:
- The Guilt theory or Fault theory: The Fault theory, also known as the offenses theory or guilt theory, stipulates that a marriage can only be dissolved if one of the parties involved has committed a matrimonial offense. In this framework, the presence of a guilty party and an innocent party is crucial, with only the innocent party being entitled to seek a divorce. A notable feature, and at the same time, limitation of this theory is that if both parties are found at fault, there is no available remedy for divorce.
- Consent Theory : Pursuant to the consent theory, the parties can mutually terminate their marriage. This theory is considered ideal for mutual divorce. This theory involves the parties living separately for a certain period of time. It also involves a two-stage application process prior to the signing of divorce papers.
- No-Fault Theory : Prior to 1976, only the theory of fault was used to award divorce. This means that a marriage can only be dissolved if both partners have engaged in a matrimonial offense. However, under the Marriage Laws (Amendment) Act of 1976, divorce can now also be achieved based on the "no-fault" principle, which means that both parties to the marriage must agree to the divorce. Considering the current socio socio-economic and legal significance of the institution of marriage, it would be unfair to disregard this theory.
The Irretrievable Breakdown Theory of divorce is a perspective in legal thinking that says if a marriage, based on love, affection, and respect, becomes severely damaged and can't be fixed due to issues like cruelty or adultery, it should be ended. This theory supports a no-fault divorce, meaning neither spouse has to prove the other is at fault. It recognizes that marriages can reach a point where they can't be fixed, unlike older divorce laws that required proving specific faults like adultery or cruelty. The idea is that sometimes marriages just break down without one person being to blame
Irretrievable Breakdown as a Ground for Divorce
The Supreme Court led by Justice S K Kaul, a five-judge Constitution Bench declared that it possesses the authority to employ its jurisdiction as outlined in Article 142(1) of the Constitution to approve divorce based on the premise of an "irretrievable breakdown" of marriage. This holds true whether the divorce is sought through mutual consent or even if one party opposes it. The Court has stated its capability to waive the mandatory six-month waiting period established by the Hindu Marriage Act of 1955, contingent on specific circumstances. Article 142(1) empowers the Supreme Court to issue judgments or directives "essential for achieving comprehensive justice in any ongoing legal matter or case."
It emphasized that the "granting of divorce due to irretrievable breakdown of marriage" is not an automatic entitlement. Instead, it's a discretion that must be exercised with meticulous care and prudence, taking into account numerous factors to ensure that the principles of "complete justice" are upheld for both parties involved.
The mere irreparable breakdown of a marriage is not, by itself, a sufficient reason to grant a divorce. However, when evaluating the evidence presented to establish the grounds for divorce, the surrounding circumstances may be taken into account. It's important to note that a divorce cannot be approved solely based on the notion of an irretrievable breakdown if the party seeking the divorce is responsible for the situation.
A divorce decree citing an irretrievable breakdown of the marriage can be issued when both parties have made allegations against each other to such an extent that the marriage seems to have lost all viability and the parties cannot continue living together. The court's authority to grant a divorce due to an irretrievable breakdown of the marriage should be exercised sparingly and with careful consideration, only in exceptional situations and in the best interest of both parties.
You might be interested in: 9 Grounds of Divorce in India
Examples Illustrating the Concept of Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage
Below are a few examples that illustrate the concept of irretrievable breakdown of marriage:
- Extended Separation: Even despite repeated attempts to stay together, a couple who has been living apart for a while may decide to get a divorce because they have become emotionally distant from one another.
- Constant Conflict: The psychological well-being of a married couple is negatively affected by their ongoing disagreements that progressively worsen. They are unable to coexist peacefully.
- Infidelity: An emotional or sexual act performed by one party in a committed relationship when it happens outside of the primary partnership and is a breach of trust or a violation of the parties' mutually agreed-upon rules (both overt and covert). This act may result in the breakdown of marriage.
- Abuse: Any form of abuse whether physical, emotional, or mental can impact the partner who is suffering. Such an act will not only break the marriage but may result in long-term impact on the victim.
- Substance Abuse: The marriage has been damaged due to the continuous battle between one spouse and substance abuse, such as alcohol or narcotics. Rehab efforts have not been successful, damaging the relationship.
- Lack of Communication: Lack of communication can raise the likelihood of a breakdown, separation, or divorce as well as cause blame, relationship anxiety, sadness, and resentment in marriages and relationships. Poor communication can harm a relationship in a number of ways, including animosity between people.
- Amit Kumar vs. Suman Beniwal (2021): In this case, the Supreme Court (SC) emphasized the importance of reconciliation during divorce proceedings. The court stated that even if there is a faint possibility of reconciliation, the mandatory six-month cooling-off period from the date of filing the divorce petition should be enforced. However, the court noted that if reconciliation is deemed impossible, extending the agony of the parties through unnecessary delays in divorce proceedings is unwarranted.
- Naveen Kohli v. Neelu Kohli (2006 4 SCC 558): The SC emphasized that situations causing prolonged suffering should not be permitted to persist indefinitely. The court held that dissolving a marriage that was beyond repair would be in the best interests of all parties involved. The ruling stemmed from the husband's allegations of enduring mental, physical, and financial harassment from his wife. Both the husband and wife had accused each other of tarnishing their characters but failed to substantiate these claims. Despite attempts to find an amicable resolution, the court noted the absence of any remaining mutual understanding between the couple, making the prospect of restoring their marital relationship unfeasible. The SC addressed the necessity of a significant amendment to the Hindu Marriage Act. The court proposed a crucial modification that would empower either spouse to invoke the concept of "Irretrievable breakdown of marriage" as a valid reason to seek a divorce. The court's observation stemmed from the realization that numerous marriages, while essentially defunct, were unable to secure divorce due to the absence of a provision specifically recognizing irretrievable breakdown. In light of its concerns, the SC called for the integration of the irretrievable breakdown provision into the Hindu Marriage Act.
- Jayachandra v. Aneel Kaur (AIR 2005 SC 534): In this case, the SC examined comparable scenarios and arrived at a similar conclusion. It observed that when one spouse prioritizes their profession over their partner's freedom, it signifies discord, diffusion, and deterioration of marital harmony. This, in turn, suggests an irretrievable breakdown of the marriage. The Court, after careful consideration, granted a divorce to the husband due to the evident breakdown of the marriage. This decision contrasts with instances where the court has opted for the restitution of conjugal rights instead of granting a divorce. This departure from the traditional view is noteworthy, considering the customary reverence for Hindu marriage, which is often considered the bedrock for seeking the restitution decree.
In Shilpa Sailesh vs. Varun Sreenivasan (2023) case, the SC delivered a significant ruling that affirmed to dissolution of the marriage on the grounds of irretrievable breakdown. This decision also granted the court the power to waive the mandatory six-month waiting period for divorce, a requirement under the Hindu Marriage Act (HMA), 1955. Even if one of the parties was not willing, the SC's judgment allowed for the dissolution of the marriage based on the irretrievable breakdown of the relationship. The ruling's significance lies in its potential to expedite the divorce process, which is often protracted due to the considerable number of similar cases awaiting resolution in family courts. By enabling the dissolution of a marriage, even if one of the parties is agreeable, the judgment provides a swift solution for couples who have mutually concluded that their marriage is untenable. This decision holds particular significance because, under the Hindu Marriage Act (HMA) 1955, irretrievable breakdown of marriage is not yet recognized as a standalone ground for divorce. Although Section 13 of the HMA 1955 outlines several grounds for dissolution, no codified law explicitly addresses irretrievable breakdown.
However, the SC's ruling does not imply an open invitation for individuals to swiftly secure a divorce. The court clarified that the grant of divorce on the grounds of irretrievable breakdown is not an automatic right; it is a discretionary power that must be exercised with careful consideration. Additionally, the SC underscored that parties cannot directly file a writ petition under Article 32 (or Article 226) of the Indian Constitution seeking relief for dissolution of marriage on the basis of irretrievable breakdown. The judgment highlights the nuanced nature of this legal remedy and the necessity for prudence in its application.
Q. What factors do courts consider when determining irretrievable breakdown?
To determine if a marriage has irretrievably broken down, courts may take into account elements including long-term separation, emotional distance, broken communication, persistent conflict, and proof of failed attempts at reconciliation.
Q. Do both spouses need to agree to a divorce due to an irretrievable breakdown?
While obtaining a divorce by mutual consent is customary, it may not be necessary for both spouses to agree in order to establish an irretrievable breakdown. Even if one party objects, the court may issue a divorce if it is convinced that the marriage cannot be saved.
Q. Can I remarry immediately after the court declares an irretrievable breakdown?
After the divorce is finalized, you will be able to lawfully remarry if the court approves a divorce based on an irretrievable breakdown. It's crucial to finish all necessary legal procedures before thinking about getting married again.
Q. How long does the process of proving irretrievable breakdown usually take?
The duration of divorce proceedings can vary significantly based on factors such as the court's caseload, the complexity of the case, and the willingness of both parties to cooperate. Generally, divorces can take several months to a few years to conclude.
Q. Should I consult a lawyer to claim an irretrievable breakdown?
Consult a divorce lawyer who can walk you through the procedure, assist you in gathering evidence, and ensure your rights are upheld given the intricacy of divorce laws and their potential repercussions.