Allahabad High Court: The bench of Pramod Kumar Srivastava, J. held that granting divorce on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage is exclusive within jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and is beyond jurisdiction of any other Court in India.
Against the judgment of trial court, Civil Appeal was preferred by wife, which was heard and dismissed by the judgment dated 14.12.2011 of Additional District Judge/Special Judge, Gautam Buddha Nagar. In this judgment, lower appellate court had independently appreciated the evidences and held that parties are living separately from year 2002 and during the very short period of living together, their relationship was not normal.
The High Court after perusing the arguments observed that there is total absence of mutual respect and the behavior of both the parties indicates the embittered relationship. Both are still undergoing under a traumatic experience. Thus, Court dismissing the appeal held that continuance of such a relationship will amount to mental cruelty. But the Counsel for appellant argued that the ground of “irretrievable breakdown of marriage’ is not sustainable. He stated that this ground can be taken by the Supreme Court only for granting the divorce in exercise powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India and this ground cannot be taken by any other Court including High Court because such ground is not mentioned in Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act. The Learned Counsel for Respondent stated that marriage had reached the point of no return which cannot be repaired, but such ground is not mentioned in Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act.
The Court while accepting the above allegations suggested the Law Commission of the State to take appropriate steps to consider for incorporating the ground of “irretrievable breakdown of marriage’ as grounds of divorce in Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act. [Puja Suri v. Bijoy Suri, 2016 SCC OnLine All 300, decided on 26.05.2016]
I appeared for the wife. This order is bad in law and without jurisdiction. But the Appealant chose not to challenge it in the Supreme Court.