The'faulttheory'vsthe'breakdowntheory'ofdivorce

ByRakeshShukla
Shoulddivorcebegrantedsolelyonthebasisofwhois'atfault'?Orshould'irretrievablebreakdown'ofamarriagebecausefor
divorce? In a recent judgment, the Supreme Court held that situations causing misery should not be allowed to continue
indefinitely,andthatthedissolutionofamarriagethatcouldnotbesalvagedwasintheinterestsofallconcerned
TheHinduMarriageActgoverningmarriagebetweenHindus,andtheSpecialMarriageActgoverningmarriagebetween
individualsregardlessofreligiouspersuasion,arepremisedonthe'fault'or'matrimonialoffence'theoryforthepurposeof
divorce.This,ineffect,meansthatapersoncanbegrantedadivorceif,forexample,itisestablishedthatthespousehas
committedadultery,orhastreatedthepersoncruellyordesertedformorethantwoyears.Thusthepersonhasbeen"atfault"in
someway.Inaddition,thewifecanaskforadivorceongroundsthataftermarriageherhusbandwasguiltyofrape,sodomyor
bestiality.
Partofthefaulttheoryisthatapersoncannottakeadvantageofhis/herownwrong.Forexample,apersoncannotcommit
adulteryorinflictcrueltyandthenfileapetitionfordivorce.Divorcecanonlybesoughtbythehurtoraggrievedpartywhohas
beenatthereceivingendoftheotherparty'soffendingconduct.
Othergroundsfordivorceareincurableunsoundnessofmind,leprosy,acommunicableformofvenerealdisease,renouncing
theworld,andsoon.
Therehasbeenanongoingdebateaboutwhetherdivorceshouldbegrantedsolelyonthebasisofthe"faultoftheparty"or
whetheritshouldbebasedonthebreakdownofmarriage.Opinionsremaindividedamongsociologists,lawmakers,reformers
andevenactivistsandfeminists.Marriageasasacrament,society'sstakeinthecontinuanceofmarriage,thedutyofjudgesto
effectareconciliationbetweentheparties,andpublicinterestaresomeofthemajorfactorsthatfeatureinthisdebate.
Wouldintroducingirretrievablebreakdownasgroundsfordivorceworkagainsttheinterestsofwomen,giventhegender
disparitiesandlargenumberofwomendesertedbytheirhusbands?Thisremainsakeyareaofconcernwithinthewomen's
movement.
TheSupremeCourthadoccasiontoengagewithirretrievablebreakdownofmarriageinthecontextofarecentcasedecidedon
March21,2006.
NaveenKohliandNeelugotmarriedin1975andwentontohavethreechildren.Naveenwastheproprietorofthreefactories.
HefiledfordivorceinthefamilycourtinKanpurongroundsofmental,physicalandfinancialharassmentandtorturebyhiswife
NeeluKohli.Thehusbandallegedthathiswifewasbadtempered,rude,quarrelledandmisbehavedwithhimandhisparents.
That,in1994,hehadbeencompelledtoleavehisparentalresidenceandstayinarentedhouse.AllegationsthatNeeluKohli
hadindulgedinindecentbehaviourwithanothermanwerealsomade.
AccordingtoNaveenKohli,Neeluhadfiledfalsecriminalchargesofcheating,forgeryandcausinginjurybyaweaponagainst
him.Thatshehadgottheireldestsontofileacaseforhavingbeenbeatenbythefather.Acaseofcruelty,insultandcriminal
intimidationwasalsofiledagainstthehusbandandhismother.Inaddition,acomplainthadbeenfiledbeforetheCompanyLaw
Boarddescribingthehusbandasacriminal,immoral,alcoholicandhavinghadaffairswithnumerouswomen.Italsodenigrated
hispositionfromproprietortoemployeeinthecompany.In1999,NeeluKohlisentanoticeaskingforapartitionofallproperties
andassets.
Thewifedeniedbeingrudeorquarrelsome.Shealsodeniedmentally,physicallyorfinanciallyharassingortorturingher
husband,andtheallegationsofimmoralbehaviour.Neeluclaimedthatherhusbandwasimmorallylivingwithanotherwoman.
Thefamilycourtfoundthatthewifehadfiledanumberofcasesagainstherhusbandandhadgotthepolicetoharasshim.She
hadreleasedanadvertisementinthenewspapersdeclaringthatherhusbandwasanemployeeinthefactory,wheninfacthe
wastheproprietor.Thecourtconcludedthatthehusbandwasbeingmentally,physicallyandfinanciallyharassedbyhiswife.It
heldthatbothhusbandandwifehadallegationsofcharacterassassinationagainstthembuthadfailedtoprovethese

allegations.Thecourtobservedthatalthougheffortshadbeenmadetowardsanamicablesettlementtherewasnocordialityleft
betweenthepartiesand,therefore,nopossibilityof"reconnectingthechainofmaritallifebetweentheparties".
Thefamilycourtdissolvedthemarriage,directingthehusbandtodepositRs25lakhtowardspermanentmaintenanceofthe
wife.Thehusbanddepositedthemoneywithintwodaysofthejudgment.Thewifepreferredanappealagainstthegrantingof
divorceintheAllahabadHighCourt,whichheldthatthefamilycourthadnotproperlyevaluatedtheevidence.Itheldthatthe
husbandwaslivingwithanotherwoman.Thewife'sappealwasallowedandthesuitfordivorcebythehusbanddismissed.The
husbandappealedandthematterreachedtheSupremeCourt.ThejudgmentwasdeliveredinMarchandisreportedas
NaveenKohliversusNeeluKohli,2006(3)SCALE252.
AfternotingthatirretrievablebreakdownofmarriagewasnotgroundsfordivorceundertheHinduMarriageAct,thecourtwent
aheadandexaminedtheconceptinthecontextofthepresentcaseandchangingsocialmoresinIndiaandaroundtheworld.
TheLawCommissioninits71streport,submittedin1978,dealtwiththeconceptofirretrievablebreakdownofmarriage.The
reportmentionsthatasfarbackas1920,NewZealandwasthefirstoftheCommonwealthcountriestointroducetheprovision
thatathreeyearormoreseparationagreementwasgroundsforfilingapetitioninthecourtsfordivorce.In1921,inthefirst
caseofthegrantingofdivorceonthesegroundsinNewZealand,thecourtlaiddownthatwhenmatrimonialrelationshave,in
fact,ceasedtoexistitisnotintheinterestsofthepartiesorintheinterestofthepublictokeepamanandwomanboundas
husbandandwifeinlaw.Thatintheeventofsuchaseparation,theessentialpurposeofmarriagehadbeenfrustratedandits
furthercontinuance"notmerelyuselessbutmischievous".Thisformulationhasbecomeaclassicenunciationofthebreakdown
principleinmatrimoniallaw.
TheLawCommissionobservedthatrestrictingdivorcetomatrimonialdisabilityresultsinaninjusticeincaseswhereneither
partyisatfault,orifthefaultisofsuchanaturethatthepartiesdonotwishtodivulgeitandyetthemarriagecannotbeworked
out.Itreferstoasituationwheretheemotionalandotherbonds,whicharetheessenceofmarriage,havedisappearedandonly
afaA
aderemains.Thecommissionconcludesthatwhereamarriagehasceasedtoexistbothinsubstanceandinreality,
divorceshouldbeseenasasolutionandanescaperouteoutofadifficultsituation.Suchadivorceshouldbeconcernedwith
bringingthepartiesandthechildrentotermswiththenewsituationandworkingoutasatisfactorybasisforregulating
relationshipsinthechangedcircumstances.Nottodwellonthe'wrongs'ofthepast.
Thecourtreferstotheacceptanceofthesubstitutionofbreakdowninplaceofmatrimonialoffencesasabasisfordivorce,bythe
generalassemblyoftheChurchofScotlandin1969.Thejudgmentquoteswithapprovaltheunderlyingrationalethat:
"Matrimonialoffencesareoftentheoutcomeratherthanthecauseofthedeterioratingmarriage.Anaccusatorialprincipleof
divorcetendstoencouragematrimonialoffences,increasebitternessandwidentheriftthatisalreadythere."
Observingthatadivorcelawbasedmainlyonfaultisinadequatetodealwithabrokenmarriage,thejudgmentstatesthatonce
amarriagehasbrokendownitwouldbeunrealisticofthelawnottotakenoticeofthisfact.Accordingtothecourt,alongperiod
ofcontinuousseparationcouldbetakentosurmisethatthematrimonialbondisbeyondrepairandthatthemarriagehas
become"afictionthoughsupportedbyalegaltie".
Thejudgmentholdsthatrefusaltoseverthetieinsuchacasedoesnotservethesanctityofmarriageinfact,itshowsscant
regardforthefeelingsandemotionsoftheparties.
Thecourtobservesthatpublicinterestdemandsthatthemarriedstatusshould,asfaraspossible,aslongaspossibleand
wheneverpossible,bemaintained.However,whereamarriagehasbeenwreckedbeyondanyhopeofitbeingsalvaged,
publicinterestliesintherecognitionofthefact.Thejudgmentnotesthatthereisnoacceptablewayinwhichaspousecanbe
compelledtoresumelifewiththeconsort,andthatnothingisgainedbytryingtokeepthepartiestiedforevertoamarriagethat
hasceasedtoexist.
Rejectingtheviewthatirretrievablebreakdownasgroundsfordivorcewouldcreatemoreproblemsthanitwouldsolve,the
courtholdsthatsituationscausingmiseryshouldnotbeallowedtocontinueindefinitely,andthatthelawhasaresponsibilityto
adequatelyrespondtotheneedsofsociety.
Comingtothefactsofthecase,thecourtnotesthatNaveenKohliandNeeluKohlihavebeenlivingseparatelyforover10
years.Alargenumberofcriminalcasesoftheft,cheating,forgeryandcausinghurthadbeenfiledbythewifeagainsther
husband.Inaddition,NeeluKohlihadinitiatedcivilproceedingsagainstherhusband.Naveenhadinitiatedlegalproceedings
againsthiswife.Thewifepublishingadvertisementsdescribingherproprietorhusbandasanemployeeandcautioningthe

worldnottodealwithhimcouldbesaidtoamounttomentalcruelty.ThecourtconcludedthatthemarriagebetweenNaveen
andNeeluKohlihadbrokendownirretrievably,andthattherewasnochanceoftheirevercomingtogetherorlivingtogether
again.
Observingthatthemarriagehadbeenwreckedbeyondanyhopeofsalvation,thecourtheldthatpublicinterestandthe
interestsofallconcernedlayintherecognition,inlaw,ofthisfact.Thateventhoughthewifewasnotagreeabletoadivorceby
mutualconsentandseemedtohaveresolvedtoliveinagonyonlytomakethelifeofherhusbandamiserablehell,public
interestlayinthedissolutionofthemarriagebond.Keepingashamofamarriagealiveinlawwasheldtobemoreconduciveto
immoralityandpotentiallymoreprejudicialtothepublicinterestthanthedissolutionofmarriage.Notgrantingadivorceunder
suchcircumstanceswasheldtobedisastrousfortheparties.Thegrantingofdivorcewouldofferthemthechance,both
psychologicallyandemotionally,tosettledownafterawhileandstartanewchapterinlife.TheSupremeCourtdirectedthatthe
marriagebetweenNaveenandNeeluKohlibedissolved,subjecttothehusbandgivingRs25lakhtothewifeaspermanent
maintenance.
Further,thejudgment,takingintoconsiderationsocietalneeds,recommendsthatthegovernmentseriouslyconsiderbringingin
anamendmenttotheHinduMarriageAct,1955,toincorporateirretrievablebreakdownofmarriageasgroundsforthegranting
ofdivorce.
(RakeshShuklaisaSupremeCourtlawyer)
InfoChangeNews&Features,May2006