The Punjab & Haryana High Court has dissolved the marriage of a couple who had been living apart for the past 17 years. The Court firmly held that compelling them to cohabit again would be nothing but “fiction supported by a legal tie”, which amounts to cruelty.
A Division Bench of Justice Sudhir Singh and Justice Sukhvinder Kaur ruled:
“The parties, who have been living separately since 2008, if compelled to live together, would become a fiction supported by a legal tie and it would show scant regard for the feelings and emotions of the parties. This, in itself would amount to mental cruelty to both the parties.”
The Court was dealing with an appeal against the Family Court’s decision, which had dismissed the husband’s divorce petition. The couple had been married in 2007 and the husband filed for divorce in 2014. He specifically stated in his petition that they had been living separately since 2008. The wife, in her written reply, did not deny this claim, indirectly confirming that they had indeed been apart for nearly 17 years.
Importantly, there had been no efforts to resume matrimonial ties during this entire period. There was no record of the wife attempting reconciliation or filing any application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights.
The High Court referred to the landmark Supreme Court judgment in Naveen Kohli v. Neetu Kohli [2006 (4) SCC 558], which dealt with the concept of irretrievable breakdown of marriage. In that case, the wife refused to consent to a divorce and instead prolonged the separation, leading to immense distress to the husband.
The Apex Court in Naveen Kohli had observed:
“Not to grant a decree of divorce would be disastrous for the parties. There may be a ray of hope that after obtaining a decree of divorce, the parties may psychologically and emotionally settle down and start a new chapter in life.”
Following this reasoning, the Punjab & Haryana High Court concluded that in the present matter too, the marriage had become unworkable and was beyond repair. The Court added:
“If the parties are called upon to stay together, it may lead to mental cruelty to both of them.”
Accordingly, the marriage was dissolved, giving both parties legal closure after 17 years of separation and no hope of reconciliation.
Mr. Puneet Jindal, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Malvi Aggarwal, Advocate for appellant.
Mr. Gaurav Sharma, Advocate for respondent.
Title: SXXXXX v. RXXXXX
