Xxfresearch Methodology: 1.1 Research Aim and Objective
Xxfresearch Methodology: 1.1 Research Aim and Objective
Xxfresearch Methodology: 1.1 Research Aim and Objective
This research work is done on the topic of “Irretrievable breakdown of marriage, theory
of divorce-applicability of this under Hindu Marriage Act 1995”. The basic object behind
making this paper on this topic is to get a brief knowledge about the above statement and the
grounds of divorce.
The researcher in this work has been relied mainly on ‘Divorce’. The above method was
considered apt for the given topic; because, it is a theory-based topic, for which the doctrinal
method of research is preferred as compared to non-doctrinal or empirical method of
research.
Marriage constitutes the very basis of social organization. Hindu law regards marriage as a
sacrament- indissoluble and eternal. This sacramental character of marriage has given rise to
certain anomalies. The declaration of Manu that neither by sale nor by desertion is wife
released from the husband was applied only to women and not men. Thus there was an
element of inherent injustice on the wife in Hindu law. To counter such inequalities among
spouses and to protect the sacramental aspect of marriage, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 was
enacted which provided certain matrimonial remedies.
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 the modern Hindu Law strictly enforces monogamy. Even under
the 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 capacity to do justice between co wives in
law is 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.
There was a time when it was believed that the marriages were arranged in heaven, and it
used to be a relation of flesh with flesh and bone with bone. So the question of separation
from each other was a far cry. But slowly and steadily this concept did not find favour with
social reformers, who wanted that a woman must not be chained with a man who is
completely devoid of all the virtues that a reasonable husband should have. The British
Government frowned upon any effort to make radical changes in the provisions of Hindu
Law, although Hindu reformers were agitating for such changes from time to time.
The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 came into existence, eight years after the independence of the
country. Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act deals with the grounds on which the parties
can seek a decree of divorce from a competent court having jurisdiction to entertain such
petition. In the literal sense "divorce" means a legal separation of two persons of the opposite
sex who desire to respect and honor each other.
This means the couple can no longer live together as man and wife. Both partners, and one
partner, must prove to the court that the marriage broke down so badly that there is no
reasonable chance of getting back together.
Till date, the prevailing laws in India regarding the issue of divorce have not recognized a
situation where the spouses are facing a situation that despite the fact that they live under the
same roof, their marriage is equivalent to a separation. That is, there is still no codified law
for irretrievable breakdown of marriage. The Hindu Marriage Act recognize few grounds for
dissolution of marriage in Section 13.But with the change in the social mores and in view of
the changing nature of marriage in the society, the supreme court has shown special concern
over the matter of making irretrievable breakdown of marriage as a ground for divorce. The
Supreme Court has with a view to do complete justice and shorten agony of the parties
Examples of the kind of evidence the court will accept as proof of irretrievable breakdown:
# The couple has not lived together like husband and wife for a period of time.
# One partner had sexual intercourse with somebody else and because of this the other
partner finds it impossible to continue living together as husband and wife.
# One partner is in prison after being declared an 'habitual criminal'. (This means he or she
keeps committing crimes, and because of this was sentenced to 10-15 years in prison.)
# One partner abused the other, for example the husband keeps assaulting the wife.
# The partners no longer love each other - they may be too different, or they married when
they were too young. - One of the partners finds it impossible to live together as husband and
wife for any other reason.
The idea behind the declaration of irretrievable breakdown of marriage is also based on the
consent as it play a major role in the occurrence of a valid marriage. Since consent is
accorded primacy at the time of marriage, it follows that when one or both parties believe that
the marriage has broken, they can petition for divorce. When both parties agree the marriage
has failed, they can apply for divorce by "mutual consent". When only one of the parties
believes that the marriage is failing, it would be enabling for the party to seek divorce arguing
that the marriage has broken down, despite the unwillingness of the other party to end the
relationship.
However, except in the Islamic law, "irretrievable breakdown of marriage" is not found in
any legislation as a specific ground for divorce. There are five central concerns about
bringing the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage into the divorce statute. These
are:
1) Marriage relationship is accorded sanctity in our society, which would be treated with
levity if this ground of divorce is available;
The last three objections can be dealt with together, by introducing in the ground for
irretrievable breakdown, adequate safeguards which introduce objective elements to
determine when there is an irretrievable breakdown, and providing for the ancillary issues in
the marriage relationship to be resolved as a condition for grant of divorce. This would
include financial support to the spouse and children, arrangements on the custody of the
children, distribution of the property of the spouses, etc. Where the spouse applying for the
divorce has committed a wrong, this could be a factor in determining the maintenance
granted to the other spouse. While this ground may seem an attractive and easy option, the
introduction of objective factors to determine breakdown will ensure that this ground is not
opted for on whim or an impulse.
The theoretical basis for including the irretrievable breakdown of marriage as a ground for
divorce is now commonly known among lawyers and jurists. Restricting the ground of
divorce to a particular offence or matrimonial disability causes injustice in those cases where
the situation is such that although none of the parties is at fault, or the fault is of such a nature
that the parties to the marriage do not wish to divulge it, yet there has arisen a situation in
which the marriage cannot be worked; that is, where the marriage has all external
appearances of marriage but none of the reality. In such circumstances, there is hardly any
utility in maintaining the marriage as a façade, when the emotional and other bounds which
are the essence of marriage have disappeared. After the marriage has ceased to exist in
substance and in reality, there is no reason for denying divorce. In a situation like this, the
parties alone can decide whether their mutual relation is emotionally and socially real and
strong or not. Divorce should be seen as a solution and a way out of a difficult situation. Such
divorce should not be concerned with the wrongs of the pasts, but must focus on bringing the
parties and the children to terms with the new situation and developments by working out the
most satisfactory basis upon which they may regulate their relation in the changing scenario.
One of the facts from which the irretrievable breakdown can be presumed is, whether the
husband and wife have been living apart continuously for a long time. However, living apart
should be the only proof of irretrievable breakdown. Thus, it is not enough for the parties to
aver that there as been an irretrievable breakdown of marriage. Such an averment must be
substantiated and the fact that the parties to a marriage have not lived together for a long
period of time can reasonably taken to be a tangible presumptive proof of the breakdown of
marriage . In Sandhya Rani v. Kalyanram Narayanan reported in (1994) Supp. 2 SCC 588,
this Court reiterated and took the view that since the parties are living separately for the last
more than three years, we have no doubt in our mind that the marriage between the parties
has irretrievably broken down. There is no chance whatsoever of their coming together.
Therefore, the Court in such cases, grant the decree of divorce.
Before discussing the merits and demerits of the theory of irretrievable breakdown, a question
arises, that whether the Hindu Marriage Act can be amended with a view to making
irretrievable breakdown of marriage as a good ground for grant of a decree of divorce? In
seeking answer to the question we have to bear in mind the changing nature of the family.
The family is becoming more democratic and more egalitarian. Both the husband and wife
share not only the family house; in some cases they also share the earnings of each other.
Because of the rising rate of female activity, the family unit is more of a coalition. It is
therefore necessary that if the coalition cannot be worked, the legal sanction for it must be
withdrawn.
In answer to the obligation that the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage is vague, it
may be stated that the petitioner has to satisfy the court of a concrete fact- living apart for a
sufficient length of time. Judges have thus to adjudicate on facts (not on some vague
concepts) the question whether or not, on the evidence before them, the parties have been
living apart for the specified period.
A law of divorce based mainly on fault is inadequate to deal with a broken marriage. Under
the faulty theory, guilt has to be proved; divorce courts are presented concrete instances of
human behaviour as bring the institution of marriage into disrepute. Because of the divorce of
matrimonial offence, judges, and lawyers are sometimes reduced to the role of scavengers.
The lawyers have to look for and expose and the judges are confronted with, the worst
obscenities within a married life. It is therefore, not surprising that with the present adversary
system all types of allegations are freely hurled across the courtroom. We need not stand on
an old divorce law which demands that men and women must be found innocent or guilty. It
is desirable to get rid o the public washing of dirt linen which takes place in long drawn-out
cruelty cases or in cases based on fault. If divorce is allowed to go through on the ground of
marriage breakdown, such an unhappy spectacle will be avoided.
a) Irretrievable breakdown allows the spouses, or even one spouse, to terminate the marriage
at will, thus transforming marriage from a union for life into one which can be ended at
pleasure,
b) It is necessary to the basic principle that no man should be allowed to take advantage of his
own wrong; a spouse who was responsible for the breakdown of marriage should not be able
to rely on such breakdown in order to obtain a divorce against his or her partner’s will. By
authorizing one spouse to divorce the other against the latter’s will after separation for a
specific period, the law will have given statutory recognition for the first time to the principle
that a person may take advantage of his or her own wrong.
The theory that one cannot take advantage of one’s own wrong has not been adhered to in the
Hindu Marriage Act in the past. According to clause (ii) of sub section (1A) of section 13 of
the Act, either party to a marriage, whether solemnized before or after the commencement of
this Act, may present a petition for the dissolution of the marriage by a decree of divorce on
the ground that there has been no restitution of conjugal rights as between the parties to the
marriage for a period of one year or afterwards after the passing of a decree for the restitution
of conjugal rights in proceedings to which they were parties. This provision clearly
contemplates that even the party which has been in the wrong in so far as it has failed to
comply with a decree for restitution of conjugal rights can also apply for a decree of divorce
on the ground that there has been no restitution of conjugal rights as between the parties to
the marriage for a period of one year or upwards after the passing of the decree for restitution
of conjugal rights in a proceeding to which they were parties. Such a party, though at fault,
would thus be taken advantage of its own fault. It cannot therefore be said that under the
Thus, once the marriage has broken down beyond repair, it would be unrealistic for the law
not to take notice of that fact, and it would be harmful to society and injurious to the interests
of the parties if the legal bond is sought to be maintained notwithstanding the disappearance
of the emotional substratum. Such a course would encourage continuous bickering perpetual
bitterness, and may often lead to immorality. Where there has been a long period of
continuous separation, it may fairly be surmised that the matrimonial bond is beyond repair.
The marriage becomes a fiction, though supported by a legal tie. By refusing to sever that tie
the law in such cases does not serve the sanctity of marriage; on the contrary, it shows scant
regard for the feelings and emotions of the parties.
Public interests demands not only that the married status should, as far as possible, as log as
possible, and whenever possible, be maintained, but also that the court should be empowered
to declare defunct de jure what is already defunct de jacto, where a marriage has been
wrecked beyond the hope of salvage, public interest lies in the recognition of that fact. To
keep the sham is obviously conducive to immorality and potentially more prejudicial to the
public interest than dissolution of the marriage bond.
Since there is no acceptable way in which a spouse can be compelled to resume life with the
consort, nothing is gained by trying to keep the parties tied for ever to a marriage that in fact
has ceased to exit. Marriage is life long cohabitation in the home. When the prospect of
continuing cohabitation has ceased, the legal tie should be dissolved.
The Law Commission in its 71st report, submitted in 1978, dealt with the concept of
irretrievable breakdown of marriage. The report deals with an important question concerning
the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, whether irretrievable breakdown of marriage can be made a
ground for divorce under that Act and if so, to what extent and subject to what conditions?
The Report mentions that as far back as 1920, New Zealand was the first of the
Commonwealth countries to introduce the provision that a three-year or more separation
agreement was grounds for filing a petition in the courts for divorce. In 1921, in the first case
of the granting of divorce on these grounds in New Zealand, the court laid down that when
matrimonial relations have, in fact, ceased to exist it is not in the interests of the parties or in
the interest of the public to keep a man and woman bound as husband and wife in law. In the
event of such a separation, the essential purpose of marriage is frustrated and its further
continuance is not merely useless but mischievous. This formulation has become a classic
enunciation of the breakdown principle in matrimonial law.
The Law Commission observed that restricting divorce to matrimonial disability results in an
injustice in cases where neither party is at fault, or if the fault is of such a nature that the
parties do not wish to divulge it and yet the marriage cannot be worked out. It refers to a
situation where the emotional and other bonds, which are the essence of marriage, have
disappeared and only a façade remains. The commission concludes that where a marriage has
ceased to exist both in substance and in reality, divorce should be seen as a solution and an
escape route out of a difficult situation. Such a divorce should be concerned with bringing the
parties and the children to terms with the new situation and working out a satisfactory basis
for regulating relationships in the changed circumstances. Not to dwell on the ‘wrongs’ of the
past.
In most of the cases, the question confronted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court is should divorce
be granted solely on the basis of who is ‘at fault’? Or should ‘irretrievable breakdown’ of a
marriage be cause for divorce?
The Hindu Marriage Act governing marriages between Hindus, and the Special Marriage Act
governing marriage between individuals regardless of religious persuasion, are premised on
the ‘fault’ or ‘matrimonial offence’ theory for the purpose of divorce. This, in effect, means
that a person can be granted a divorce if, for example, it is established that the spouse has
committed adultery, or has treated the person cruelly or deserted for more than two years.
Thus the person has been at fault in some way. In addition, the wife can ask for a divorce on
grounds that after marriage her husband was guilty of rape, sodomy or bestiality.
Part of the fault theory is that a person cannot take advantage of his/her own wrong. Divorce
can only be sought by the hurt or aggrieved party who has been at the receiving end of the
other party’s offending conduct. There has been an ongoing debate about whether divorce
should be granted solely on the basis of the fault of the party or whether it should be based on
the breakdown of marriage. Opinions remain divided among sociologists, lawmakers,
reformers and even activists and feminists.
Marriage as a sacrament, society’s stake in the continuance of marriage, the duty of judges to
effect reconciliation between the parties, and public interest are some of the major factors that
feature in this debate. Would introducing irretrievable breakdown as grounds for divorce
work against the interests of women, given the gender disparities and large number of women
deserted by their husbands?
In the recent case of Naveen Kohli v. Neelu Kohli , the Supreme Court held that situations
causing misery should not be allowed to continue indefinitely, and that the dissolution of a
marriage that could not be salvaged was in the interests of all concerned. The court concluded
that the husband was being mentally, physically and financially harassed by his wife. It held
that both husband and wife had allegations of character assassination against them but had
failed to prove these allegations. The court observed that although efforts had been made
CRITICISM
The concept of irretrievable breakdown of marriage to be made a ground for divorce under
the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 has been although a lot more debated but it has equally been
criticized at various points by the state High courts and The Government of India. They can
be summarized as follows:-
Criticism by the High Court: High Court has in many cases, expressed disagreement with the
suggestion that the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 should be amended with a view to making
irretrievable breakdown of marriage as a good ground for grant of a decree of divorce.
The judges of the High Courts have expressed themselves against the introduction of
irretrievable breakdown as a ground of divorce. One of the points made in the reply of the
High Court is that it is extremely difficult to say that the husband and wife would never live
together merely because there has been a rift between them and for the time being it appears
that there may not be any prospect of their living together.
The mere fact that there has been a rift between the parties or that they are for the time living
apart does not mean that the marriage has come to an end.
It is possible that what may appear to one person to be irretrievable may appear to another as
not yet beyond repair. But such a state of things cannot be allowed to continue indefinitely,
and there must arrive a point of time when one of the parties should be permitted to seek the
judgment of the court as to whether there is or there is not a possibility of the marriage being
retrieved.
Thus we see that though a lot of authorities have deliberated upon the aspect of irretrievable
breakdown of marriage as a ground for divorce there has also been a vast majority of
authorities that have seen the drawbacks behind this concept of breakdown theory and are not
in favor of its legislative birth and implementation.
Thus to conclude, it can be said that 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 civilisation can exist. This foundation presupposes the existence of
a platform build on the basis of sound understanding between the spouses. If this
understanding is missing between the spouses and the marriage is a continuous malady, then
it is desirable that the marriage should be dissolve with the intervention of the court. There is
no useful purpose surved by continuing such a marriage. Thus, on the basis of "irretrievable
breakdown theory" such marriage should be dissolved for the common betterment of both the
spouses.
This is the reason why the attitude of legislature changed from the "guilt theory" to the
"divorce by mutual consent" (the consent theory). There may be a case where relation of the
parties has broken down irretrievably and there is no chance of reconciliation and they are
also not ready for divorce by mutual consent. In that eventuality continuing such relation is
futile and as per Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage theory such marriage should be
dissolved. It is high time that we appreciate the need of Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage
theory so that spouses can have a new and better life instead of wasting their "young days" in
courts.
BOOK:-
WEBLIOGRAPHY:-
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/w/wacc.asp
https://www.scribd.com/doc/99700905/Family-law-I
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/divorce