The'faulttheory'vsthe'breakdowntheory'ofdivorce

ByRakeshShukla

Shoulddivorcebegrantedsolelyonthebasisofwhois'atfault'?Orshould'irretrievablebreakdown'ofamarriagebecausefordivorce? In a recent judgment, the Supreme Court held that situations causingmisery should not be allowed to continueindefinitely,andthatthedissolutionofamarriagethatcouldnotbesalvagedwasintheinterestsofallconcerned

TheHinduMarriageActgoverningmarriagebetweenHindus,andtheSpecialMarriageActgoverningmarriagebetweenindividualsregardlessofreligiouspersuasion,arepremisedonthe'fault'or'matrimonialoffence'theoryforthepurposeofdivorce.This,ineffect,meansthatapersoncanbegrantedadivorceif,forexample,itisestablishedthatthespousehascommittedadultery,orhastreatedthepersoncruellyordesertedformorethantwoyears.Thusthepersonhasbeen"atfault"insomeway.Inaddition,thewifecanaskforadivorceongroundsthataftermarriageherhusbandwasguiltyofrape,sodomyorbestiality.

Partofthefaulttheoryisthatapersoncannottakeadvantageofhis/herownwrong.Forexample,apersoncannotcommitadulteryorinflictcrueltyandthenfileapetitionfordivorce.Divorcecanonlybesoughtbythehurtoraggrievedpartywhohasbeenatthereceivingendoftheotherparty'soffendingconduct.

Othergroundsfordivorceareincurableunsoundnessofmind,leprosy,acommunicableformofvenerealdisease,renouncingtheworld,andsoon.

Therehasbeenanongoingdebateaboutwhetherdivorceshouldbegrantedsolelyonthebasisofthe"faultoftheparty"orwhetheritshouldbebasedonthebreakdownofmarriage.Opinionsremaindividedamongsociologists,lawmakers,reformersandevenactivistsandfeminists.Marriageasasacrament,society'sstakeinthecontinuanceofmarriage,thedutyofjudgestoeffectareconciliationbetweentheparties,andpublicinterestaresomeofthemajorfactorsthatfeatureinthisdebate.

Wouldintroducingirretrievablebreakdownasgroundsfordivorceworkagainsttheinterestsofwomen,giventhegenderdisparitiesandlargenumberofwomendesertedbytheirhusbands?Thisremainsakeyareaofconcernwithinthewomen'smovement.

TheSupremeCourthadoccasiontoengagewithirretrievablebreakdownofmarriageinthecontextofarecentcasedecidedonMarch21,2006.

NaveenKohliandNeelugotmarriedin1975andwentontohavethreechildren.Naveenwastheproprietorofthreefactories.HefiledfordivorceinthefamilycourtinKanpurongroundsofmental,physicalandfinancialharassmentandtorturebyhiswifeNeeluKohli.Thehusbandallegedthathiswifewasbadtempered,rude,quarrelledandmisbehavedwithhimandhisparents.That,in1994,hehadbeencompelledtoleavehisparentalresidenceandstayinarentedhouse.AllegationsthatNeeluKohlihadindulgedinindecentbehaviourwithanothermanwerealsomade.

AccordingtoNaveenKohli,Neeluhadfiledfalsecriminalchargesofcheating,forgeryandcausinginjurybyaweaponagainsthim.Thatshehadgottheireldestsontofileacaseforhavingbeenbeatenbythefather.Acaseofcruelty,insultandcriminalintimidationwasalsofiledagainstthehusbandandhismother.Inaddition,acomplainthadbeenfiledbeforetheCompanyLawBoarddescribingthehusbandasacriminal,immoral,alcoholicandhavinghadaffairswithnumerouswomen.Italsodenigratedhispositionfromproprietortoemployeeinthecompany.In1999,NeeluKohlisentanoticeaskingforapartitionofallpropertiesandassets.

Thewifedeniedbeingrudeorquarrelsome.Shealsodeniedmentally,physicallyorfinanciallyharassingortorturingherhusband,andtheallegationsofimmoralbehaviour.Neeluclaimedthatherhusbandwasimmorallylivingwithanotherwoman.

Thefamilycourtfoundthatthewifehadfiledanumberofcasesagainstherhusbandandhadgotthepolicetoharasshim.Shehadreleasedanadvertisementinthenewspapersdeclaringthatherhusbandwasanemployeeinthefactory,wheninfacthewastheproprietor.Thecourtconcludedthatthehusbandwasbeingmentally,physicallyandfinanciallyharassedbyhiswife.Itheldthatbothhusbandandwifehadallegationsofcharacterassassinationagainstthembuthadfailedtoprovethese

allegations.Thecourtobservedthatalthougheffortshadbeenmadetowardsanamicablesettlementtherewasnocordialityleftbetweenthepartiesand,therefore,nopossibilityof"reconnectingthechainofmaritallifebetweentheparties".

Thefamilycourtdissolvedthemarriage,directingthehusbandtodepositRs25lakhtowardspermanentmaintenanceofthewife.Thehusbanddepositedthemoneywithintwodaysofthejudgment.ThewifepreferredanappealagainstthegrantingofdivorceintheAllahabadHighCourt,whichheldthatthefamilycourthadnotproperlyevaluatedtheevidence.Itheldthatthehusbandwaslivingwithanotherwoman.Thewife'sappealwasallowedandthesuitfordivorcebythehusbanddismissed.ThehusbandappealedandthematterreachedtheSupremeCourt.ThejudgmentwasdeliveredinMarchandisreportedasNaveenKohliversusNeeluKohli,2006(3)SCALE252.

AfternotingthatirretrievablebreakdownofmarriagewasnotgroundsfordivorceundertheHinduMarriageAct,thecourtwentaheadandexaminedtheconceptinthecontextofthepresentcaseandchangingsocialmoresinIndiaandaroundtheworld.

TheLawCommissioninits71streport,submittedin1978,dealtwiththeconceptofirretrievablebreakdownofmarriage.Thereportmentionsthatasfarbackas1920,NewZealandwasthefirstoftheCommonwealthcountriestointroducetheprovisionthatathreeyearormoreseparationagreementwasgroundsforfilingapetitioninthecourtsfordivorce.In1921,inthefirstcaseofthegrantingofdivorceonthesegroundsinNewZealand,thecourtlaiddownthatwhenmatrimonialrelationshave,infact,ceasedtoexistitisnotintheinterestsofthepartiesorintheinterestofthepublictokeepamanandwomanboundashusbandandwifeinlaw.Thatintheeventofsuchaseparation,theessentialpurposeofmarriagehadbeenfrustratedanditsfurthercontinuance"notmerelyuselessbutmischievous".Thisformulationhasbecomeaclassicenunciationofthebreakdownprincipleinmatrimoniallaw.

TheLawCommissionobservedthatrestrictingdivorcetomatrimonialdisabilityresultsinaninjusticeincaseswhereneitherpartyisatfault,orifthefaultisofsuchanaturethatthepartiesdonotwishtodivulgeitandyetthemarriagecannotbeworkedout.Itreferstoasituationwheretheemotionalandotherbonds,whicharetheessenceofmarriage,havedisappearedandonlyafaAaderemains.Thecommissionconcludesthatwhereamarriagehasceasedtoexistbothinsubstanceandinreality,divorceshouldbeseenasasolutionandanescaperouteoutofadifficultsituation.Suchadivorceshouldbeconcernedwithbringingthepartiesandthechildrentotermswiththenewsituationandworkingoutasatisfactorybasisforregulatingrelationshipsinthechangedcircumstances.Nottodwellonthe'wrongs'ofthepast.

Thecourtreferstotheacceptanceofthesubstitutionofbreakdowninplaceofmatrimonialoffencesasabasisfordivorce,bythegeneralassemblyoftheChurchofScotlandin1969.Thejudgmentquoteswithapprovaltheunderlyingrationalethat:"Matrimonialoffencesareoftentheoutcomeratherthanthecauseofthedeterioratingmarriage.Anaccusatorialprincipleofdivorcetendstoencouragematrimonialoffences,increasebitternessandwidentheriftthatisalreadythere."

Observingthatadivorcelawbasedmainlyonfaultisinadequatetodealwithabrokenmarriage,thejudgmentstatesthatonceamarriagehasbrokendownitwouldbeunrealisticofthelawnottotakenoticeofthisfact.Accordingtothecourt,alongperiodofcontinuousseparationcouldbetakentosurmisethatthematrimonialbondisbeyondrepairandthatthemarriagehasbecome"afictionthoughsupportedbyalegaltie".

Thejudgmentholdsthatrefusaltoseverthetieinsuchacasedoesnotservethesanctityofmarriageinfact,itshowsscantregardforthefeelingsandemotionsoftheparties.

Thecourtobservesthatpublicinterestdemandsthatthemarriedstatusshould,asfaraspossible,aslongaspossibleandwheneverpossible,bemaintained.However,whereamarriagehasbeenwreckedbeyondanyhopeofitbeingsalvaged,publicinterestliesintherecognitionofthefact.Thejudgmentnotesthatthereisnoacceptablewayinwhichaspousecanbecompelledtoresumelifewiththeconsort,andthatnothingisgainedbytryingtokeepthepartiestiedforevertoamarriagethathasceasedtoexist.

Rejectingtheviewthatirretrievablebreakdownasgroundsfordivorcewouldcreatemoreproblemsthanitwouldsolve,thecourtholdsthatsituationscausingmiseryshouldnotbeallowedtocontinueindefinitely,andthatthelawhasaresponsibilitytoadequatelyrespondtotheneedsofsociety.

Comingtothefactsofthecase,thecourtnotesthatNaveenKohliandNeeluKohlihavebeenlivingseparatelyforover10years.Alargenumberofcriminalcasesoftheft,cheating,forgeryandcausinghurthadbeenfiledbythewifeagainstherhusband.Inaddition,NeeluKohlihadinitiatedcivilproceedingsagainstherhusband.Naveenhadinitiatedlegalproceedingsagainsthiswife.Thewifepublishingadvertisementsdescribingherproprietorhusbandasanemployeeandcautioningthe

worldnottodealwithhimcouldbesaidtoamounttomentalcruelty.ThecourtconcludedthatthemarriagebetweenNaveenandNeeluKohlihadbrokendownirretrievably,andthattherewasnochanceoftheirevercomingtogetherorlivingtogetheragain.

Observingthatthemarriagehadbeenwreckedbeyondanyhopeofsalvation,thecourtheldthatpublicinterestandtheinterestsofallconcernedlayintherecognition,inlaw,ofthisfact.Thateventhoughthewifewasnotagreeabletoadivorcebymutualconsentandseemedtohaveresolvedtoliveinagonyonlytomakethelifeofherhusbandamiserablehell,publicinterestlayinthedissolutionofthemarriagebond.Keepingashamofamarriagealiveinlawwasheldtobemoreconducivetoimmoralityandpotentiallymoreprejudicialtothepublicinterestthanthedissolutionofmarriage.Notgrantingadivorceundersuchcircumstanceswasheldtobedisastrousfortheparties.Thegrantingofdivorcewouldofferthemthechance,bothpsychologicallyandemotionally,tosettledownafterawhileandstartanewchapterinlife.TheSupremeCourtdirectedthatthemarriagebetweenNaveenandNeeluKohlibedissolved,subjecttothehusbandgivingRs25lakhtothewifeaspermanentmaintenance.

Further,thejudgment,takingintoconsiderationsocietalneeds,recommendsthatthegovernmentseriouslyconsiderbringinginanamendmenttotheHinduMarriageAct,1955,toincorporateirretrievablebreakdownofmarriageasgroundsforthegrantingofdivorce.

(RakeshShuklaisaSupremeCourtlawyer)

InfoChangeNews&Features,May2006