Munish Kakkar and Nidhi Kakkar herein referred as the husband and wife respectively, tied the knot of marriage according to the Hindu rites and Rituals in the year 2000 in Jalandhar, Punjab where the Husband’s family was based. The family of the girl(Nidhi Kakkar) was based in Canada. As stated by the parties, they lived with each other constantly only for a period of about 2 months, with the wife moving back and forth. In 2001 the wife left for Canada to stay with her family. The Husband states that the decision of his wife moving to Canada was without his consent, whereas the wife contends that it was on the instruction her husband only that she was making efforts for the immigration of her husband to Canada. The wife did not return to India soon after she obtained Canadian citizenship. It was stated that during this time, no papers were filed with the Canadian authorities for immigration of the husband and the wife puts the blame on incomplete papers sent by her husband. It does appear that the respondent was apparently interested in Canadian citizenship and only after having achieved that, came back to India.
The parties lived together for hardly two and a half months and then there was a squabble between them, after which the wife left for Canada. The Panchayat then intervened in the matter and the parties were asked to reside separately from their family, in a rented accommodation, but that too lasted for only few months. The wife left the common residence after a quarrel between the parties and again left for Canada.
After all these incidents the husband filed a petition for divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 on the ground of cruelty.
The husband stated that his wife was not interested in living with him in India, away from Canada and that the abandonment and lack of co-habitation has caused physical and mental torture to him. The husband also contended that the wife was suffering from depression and was on medication and it was stated by him that his wife forced him to move to Canada despite of him having a stable job in India and he was unwilling to sign the immigration papers, but he did it, to save the marriage. However, the papers were never submitted. The husband alleged that the wife was extremely suspicious and defamed him in front of his colleagues on basis of the alleged contacts with his colleagues.
The wife naturally had her own version and claimed to have travelled to Canada to meet his insistence of immigrating to Canada, though she admitted that she had not taken any documents of the husband with her to Canada. She, in fact, blamed the husband of abandoning her and made various other allegations including of dowry, physical assault and extra-marital affairs. The wife also claimed that she was forced to have an abortion when she was taken to a doctor on one occasion but the husband denied this allegation and stated that his wife was never pregnant.
After hearing the arguments from both sides, The Additional District Judge, Nawanshahr granted a decree of divorce against which an appeal was filed before the High Court. The learned Single Judge however, set aside the decree of divorce.
The Ld. Single Judge stated in the impugned order that while the parties did stay apart, no sense of anger could be made out to display any real discord between the parties, though there were adjustment issues. The learned Judge took note of the allegations regarding extra-marital affairs made against each another, but came to the conclusion that serious accusations could not be attached to the same. The allegations against each other were described as “inflamed passions”, and it was stated that these acquisitions could not knock down the fundamental walls of marriage. It was concluded that neither party had left to cross any limits in making accusations regarding each other’s extra-marital affairs and, thus, this would not constitute cruelty. The aspect of physical assault was also not established. The High Court stated that insofar as the aspect of irretrievable breakdown of the marriage is concerned, that does not form part of statutory law in India.
Efforts were made to mediate the dispute between the parties, which failed. The parties were also referred to a counselor and the counselor/psychologist
Aggrieved by the order of High Court the husband filed an appeal before the Apex Court. The Supreme Court observed that the relationship appears to have deteriorated to such an extent that both parties see little good in each other, an aspect supported by the counselor’s report; though the wife insists that she wants to stay with the appellant. The Apex Court noted that, this insistence is only to somehow not let a decree of divorce be passed against the husband. This is only to stop the attempt of the husband to get a decree of divorce, completely losing sight of the fact that matrimonial relationships require adjustments from both sides and a willingness to stay together Just saying about the willingness to stay together would not serve the cause. The Court also noted that all efforts have been made to convince the parties to live together, but nothing has helped. For that, it would not be appropriate to blame one or the other party, but the fact is that nothing remains in this marriage.
In view of these peculiar facts, the Bench remarked,” on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage, if this is not a fit case to grant divorce, what would be a fit case!” The Court stated that the separation of sixteen (16) years since 2003 had made both the parties bitter and cynical about the relationship and there was no sign of any affection or bonding on either side. The parties apparently had no history of pleasant time and only feelings of resentment arising from the several court cases. There was also no family support from either side.
The Court proceeded to award a decree of divorce and dissolved the marriage inter se the parties forthwith, invoking its jurisdiction under Article 142.
The Court concluded on a hopeful note,
“We do believe that not only is the continuity of this marriage fruitless, but it is causing further emotional trauma and disturbance to both the parties. This is even reflected in the manner of responses of the parties in the Court. The sooner this comes to an end, the better it would be, for both the parties. Our only hope is that with the end of these proceedings, which culminate in divorce between the parties, the two sides would see the senselessness of continuing other legal proceedings and

READ JUDGEMENT