A transfer case resulting from a marriage conflict was being heard by the two-judge bench of the Supreme Court, made up of Bhushan Ramkrishna Gavai and Sanjay Karol on Wednesday, when an attorney revealed that the union was a love marriage, to which Justice BR Gavai responded, “Most divorces are arising from love marriages only.”
The spouse objected to the court’s suggestion of mediation. However, the Court declared that it may award divorce without his assent in light of a recent judgement. The bench thereafter urged for arbitration.
The highest court said earlier this month that it might use its authority under Article 142(1) of the Constitution to grant a divorce on the grounds of irretrievable breakdown of a marriage, regardless of whether the parties agree to it or not.
According to a five-judge constitution bench led by Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, it is apparent that the supreme court should be thoroughly persuaded and satisfied that marriage is totally unworkable, emotionally dead, and beyond salvation and that, as a result, dissolution of marriage is the best course of action.
The factual determination and firm establishment of the court’s claim that the marriage has irretrievably broken down will depend on a number of factors, including the length of time the parties had lived together after getting married, the date on which they had last cohabited, and the nature of the accusations made by the parties against one another and their families.
The bench added that there were additional elements that needed to be taken into account, including orders made periodically during legal proceedings, the cumulative effect on the relationship, whether and how many attempts were made to resolve the disputes through court intervention or mediation, and the timing of those attempts.
The top court has the discretion to dissolve a marriage on the grounds of irretrievable breakdown in the exercise of its plenary power under Article 142 (1) of the Constitution and can grant a divorce by mutual consent while forgoing the six-month waiting period required by the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the bench noted in its ruling.
