Precedents Cited

The judgment references several key cases and reports that have shaped the court’s reasoning:

• Saroj Rani v. Sudarshan, AIR 1984 SC 1562: Misinterpreted as recognizing irretrievable breakdown as a standalone ground for divorce, this case clarified that the Supreme Court’s observation was context-specific and did not establish irretrievable breakdown as an independent ground.
• Ram Kali v. Gopal Dass, ILR (1971) 1 Delhi 6: Highlighted the practical and humane considerations in declaring a marriage defunct de jure when it is de facto defunct.
• Dharmendra v. Usha, AIR 1977 SC 2218: Approved the Delhi High Court’s decision in Ram Kali, reinforcing the principles established therein.
• Akkamma v. Jagannadhan, AIR 1981 Andh Pra 269: Emphasized that decrees for divorce were based on statutory grounds rather than mere irretrievable breakdown.
• Reynold Rajamani, AIR 1982 SC 1261: Asserted that courts cannot add new grounds for divorce beyond those specified in legislation.
• Dastane v. Dastane, AIR 1975 SC 1534: Discussed the standard of proof required in matrimonial offenses, advocating for the preponderance of probabilities.
• White v. White, AIR 1958 SC 441: Contrasted standards of proof in matrimonial offenses under different acts.
• Bipinchandra v. Prabhavati, AIR 1957 SC 176: Established the requirement of proving matrimonial offenses beyond reasonable doubt.
• Kappu Damayanti v. C. Rama Rao, AIR 1969 Andh Pra 62: Distinguished between voidable and void marriages concerning the impact of delay in filing for nullity.
• Aina Devi v. Bachan Singh, AIR 1980 Delhi 174*: Affirmed that certain grounds for nullity are not subject to time bars.
• Shikharchand v. Digambar Jain, AIR 1974 SC 1178: Supported the court’s discretion to consider events post-institution of proceedings to expedite justice.
• Savitri v. Mulchand, AIR 1987 Delhi 52; Ashok Kumar v. Smt. Santosh Sharma, AIR 1987 Delhi 63; Jaishree v. Mohan, AIR 1987 Bom 220: Illustrated the application of considering subsequent events in matrimonial disputes.

Legal Reasoning

The court meticulously dissected the grounds for divorce under the Special Marriage Act, emphasizing that only the grounds explicitly specified in the statute are permissible for divorce. The appellant's attempt to introduce «irretrievable breakdown of marriage» as an independent ground was rejected based on the following reasoning:

• Statutory Interpretation: The Special Marriage Act does not recognize irretrievable breakdown as a standalone ground. Grounds for divorce are confined to those enumerated in sections 24 and 27 of the Act.
• Precedential Clarity: Supreme Court precedents cited do not support the expansion of grounds beyond legislative provisions.
• Nullity Based on Underage: The marriage was deemed null as the appellant was underage at the time of marriage, per Section 4(c) and Section 24 of the Special Marriage Act. The appellants’ inconsistent statements about his age undermined the credibility of his claim.
• Standard of Proof: Adopted the preponderance of probabilities standard for matrimonial offenses under the Special Marriage Act, aligning with Dastane v. Dastane and distinguishing from the higher standard under the Divorce Act.
• Impact of Delay: Clarified that delay does not bar a declaration of nullity when the marriage is inherently void, distinguishing it from voidable marriages where delay can impact the decree.

Furthermore, the court addressed the contested grounds of adultery, cruelty, and desertion, ultimately finding sufficient evidence to support the claim of cruelty by the wife, thereby permitting the dissolution of marriage.

Impact

This judgment has significant implications for matrimonial law in India:

• Clarification on Grounds for Divorce: Reinforces the principle that courts cannot expand the list of divorce grounds beyond what is prescribed by legislation.
• Irretrievable Breakdown: Solidifies that irretrievable breakdown alone is insufficient for divorce under existing laws, unless encompassed within statutory provisions.
• Nullity and Delay: Establishes that in cases of inherently void marriages (e.g., underage without consent), delays in filing for nullity do not impede the declaration of nullity.
• Standard of Proof: Aligns the Special Marriage Act’s standard of proof with the civil standard, impacting how matrimonial cases are argued and adjudicated.
• Promotes Legislative Integrity: Emphasizes the supremacy of legislative provisions over judicial interpretations in defining legal grounds for divorce.

Consequently, the judgment guides lower courts to adhere strictly to legislative mandates when adjudicating divorce cases, ensuring consistency and predictability in matrimonial jurisprudence.