Introduction

The case of Vikas Kanaujia v. Sarita (2024 INSC 517) represents a significant development in matrimonial jurisprudence in India. This Supreme Court judgment addresses the complexities surrounding the dissolution of marriage amidst prolonged separation and continuous legal conflicts between spouses. The appellant, Dr. Vikas Kanaujia, sought to dissolve his marriage with Dr. Sarita on grounds of cruelty under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA), following a tumultuous 22-year separation marked by multiple legal battles.

Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court granted the divorce petition filed by Dr. Vikas Kanaujia, overturning the High Court of Allahabad’s decision which had dismissed the divorce on the grounds that the parties had not been living separately by choice. Leveraging its extraordinary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, the Supreme Court determined that the marriage had irretrievably broken down due to prolonged separation, mutual hostility, and continuous legal confrontations. Consequently, the court decreed the dissolution of marriage without awarding permanent alimony, considering both parties were financially self-sufficient.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment heavily relied on several pivotal precedents:

• Shilpa Shailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan (2023 SCC OnLine SC 544): Established that the Supreme Court can use its discretionary power under Article 142 to dissolve a marriage on the ground of irretrievable breakdown, even if one spouse opposes it.
• Rajib Kumar Roy vs Sushmita Saha (2023 SCC OnLine SC 1221): Emphasized that extended separation and mutual animosity could constitute irretrievable breakdown warranting dissolution of marriage.
• Rakesh Raman v. Kavita (2023 SCC OnLine SC 497): Clarified that irretrievable breakdown could be interpreted as cruelty when the marital relationship ceases to function beyond repair.

These cases collectively bolster the court’s stance on recognizing irretrievable breakdown as a legitimate ground for divorce, underscoring the judiciary’s role in ensuring justice beyond statutory limitations.

Legal Reasoning

The Supreme Court’s legal reasoning centered on the concept of irretrievable breakdown of marriage. The court observed that the appellant and respondent had cohabited for a mere 43 days in total over 22 years, reflecting a complete failure of the marital relationship. The continuous legal disputes, including criminal allegations and court proceedings, further demonstrated mutual hostility and the absence of any possibility for reconciliation.

By invoking Article 142, the court exercised its inherent power to do "complete justice," allowing it to bypass conventional judicial boundaries to dissolve a marriage where statutory grounds were insufficient or contested. The court deemed the marriage beyond repair, aligning with the principles established in the cited precedents.

Impact

This judgment sets a noteworthy precedent by reinforcing the judiciary’s ability to recognize irretrievable breakdown as a standalone ground for divorce under Article 142. It offers a pragmatic solution in cases where statutory provisions may fall short, ensuring that prolonged and hostile relationships can be legally terminated to prevent further injustice to the parties involved.

Moreover, it signals the court’s willingness to intervene in deeply entrenched marital disputes, emphasizing the importance of equitable justice over procedural formalities. This decision may encourage more litigants in similar prolonged separation scenarios to seek judicial intervention for divorce without being constrained by the need to prove traditional grounds like cruelty or desertion within the statutory framework.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• Article 142 of the Constitution of India: Grants the Supreme Court the authority to pass any order necessary to do "complete justice" in any case pending before it.
• Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage: A situation where the marital relationship has failed completely, and there is no reasonable chance of reconciliation between the spouses.
• Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA): Pertains to the dissolution of marriage on specific grounds, including cruelty.
• Cruelty: Under HMA, it refers to mental or physical harm or harassment by one spouse towards the other.

In essence, the court utilized constitutional powers to acknowledge that the marriage had failed entirely, allowing for dissolution without the need for traditional procedural requirements.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Vikas Kanaujia v. Sarita marks a pivotal moment in matrimonial law, affirming the judiciary’s role in addressing irreconcilable marital breakdowns through constitutional provisions. By leveraging Article 142, the court ensures that justice is served even in complex and prolonged separation scenarios, providing a legal pathway for individuals to dissolve marriages that have ceased to exist in reality.

This judgment not only clarifies the applicability of irretrievable breakdown as a standalone ground for divorce but also reinforces the importance of judicial discretion in achieving equitable outcomes. As such, it sets a robust precedent for future cases where traditional legal frameworks may hinder timely and just resolutions to marital disputes.