K. Sriniwas Rao Vs. D.A. Deepa - Matrimonial Dispute

In above noted matter bearing Civil Appeal No. 1794 of 2013 arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 4782 of 2007, hon’ble bench of Supreme Court of India comprising of Mr. Aftab Alam J. and Mrs. Ranjana Prakash Desai J has allowed the appeal and quashed the impugned High Court judgment on February 22, 2013 while holding that one spouse can cause mental cruelty by his or her conduct even while he or she is not staying under the same roof and create a situation of irretrievable breakdown of marriage on account of bitterness created by their acts.

It is pertinent to mention here that in its detailed order hon’ble Supreme Court has also observed that although irretrievable breakdown of marriage is not a ground for dissolution of marriage, but a marriage which is dead for all purposes cannot be revived by the court’s verdict, if the parties are not willing. This is because marriage involves human sentiments and emotions and if they are dried-up there is hardly any chance of their springing back to life on account of artificial reunion created by the court’s decree. 

Brief facts of the above case are that the marriage between the parties was solemnized on 25/4/1999 as per Hindu rites and customs. Unfortunately, on the very next day disputes arose between the elders on both sides which resulted in their abusing each other and hurling chappals at each other. As a consequence, on 27/4/1999, the newly married couple got separated without consummation of the marriage and   started living separately. On 04/10/1999, the respondent-wife lodged a criminal complaint against the appellant-husband before the Women Protection Cell alleging inter alia that the appellant-husband is harassing her for more dowry. Escalated acrimony led to complaints and counter complaints. The respondent-wife filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for restitution of conjugal rights before the Family Court, Secunderabad. The appellant-husband filed a counter-claim seeking dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty and desertion under Section 13(1)(i-a) and (b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

After going in detail of facts and circumstances of the case, hon’ble Supreme Court observed that the High Court erred in holding that since the husband and the wife did not stay together, there is no question of their causing cruelty to each other. In fact, staying together under the same roof is not a pre-condition for mental cruelty.   Spouse can cause mental cruelty by his or her conduct even while he or she is not staying under the same roof. In a given case, while staying away, a spouse can cause mental cruelty to the other spouse by sending vulgar and defamatory letters or notices or filing complaints containing indecent allegations or by initiating number of judicial proceedings making the other spouse’s life miserable. 

In this case hon’ble Supreme Court felt the need of pre-litigation mediation through professionals too as things would not have come to such a pass if, at the earliest,  somebody had mediated between the two. It is because, as courts observed, in desperation to save marriage, the wife might have lost balance and went on filing complaints after complaints to create pressure on husband. Perhaps, the husband should have forgiven her in the larger interest of matrimony at early stage but, the way wife approached the problem was wrong and aggravated the issues. It portrays a vindictive mind which caused extreme mental cruelty to the husband by misuse of process of law.

Hon’ble Supreme Court has also held in its judgment that though offence punishable under Section 498-A of the IPC is not compoundable, in appropriate cases if the parties are willing and if it appears to the criminal court that there exist elements of settlement, it should direct the parties to explore the possibility of settlement through mediation. This is, obviously, not to dilute the rigour, efficacy and purport of Section 498-A of the IPC, but to locate cases where the matrimonial dispute can be nipped in bud in an equitable manner. The judges, with their expertise, must ensure that this exercise does not lead to the erring spouse using mediation process to get out of clutches of the law. During mediation, the parties can either decide to part company on mutually agreed terms or they may decide to patch up and stay together. In either case for the settlement to come through, the complaint will have to be quashed. In that event, they can approach the High Court and get the complaint quashed. If however they chose not to settle, they can proceed with the complaint. In this exercise, there is no loss to anyone.