AMUTHA VERSUS A.R. SUBRAMANIAN (Supreme Court)

The Supreme Court pointed out in AMUTHA VERSUS A.R. SUBRAMANIAN CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2643 OF 2023 that when couples have been apart for a long time and cannot reconcile, this can be an important factor in resolving marital disputes, especially when marriage has turned into just a legal formality without any real trust or companionship.

“It is evident from the record that continuation of the marriage would only lead to further animosity and litigation, causing harm to both parties. The appellant’s insistence on reconciliation appears to be more of a strategy to prolong the proceedings rather than a genuine effort to revive the relationship. In matrimonial disputes, this Court has emphasized the need to prioritize welfare and dignity of both parties. Forcing a marriage to continue when it has become a source of unhappiness and conflict undermines the very purpose of the institution of marriage. In the present case, the interests of both the parties are best served by allowing both parties to move on with their lives independently”

It was held that marriage should be based on trust, companionship, and shared moments. If these core elements have been absent for a long time, the bond looks more like a legal agreement than a meaningful relationship. This Court has consistently stated that a long separation along with an inability to patch things up is significant in matters of divorce.

The Court observed this while rejecting a woman’s appeal against a High Court decision that granted her husband a divorce due to mental cruelty.

It was noted that the evidence shows that the woman created a situation that caused her husband great emotional pain. She filed false criminal charges against him and his family, which not only damaged their relationship but also harmed his reputation and peace of mind.

Living apart for twenty years further strengthens the idea that the marriage is no longer workable. Even though the Hindu Marriage Act doesn’t recognize the irretrievable breakdown of marriage as a legal basis for divorce, the Court mentioned that in suitable situations, it can use its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to help when a marriage cannot be saved.

The evidence clearly points to a marriage that cannot be salvaged, the Court stated, considering the ongoing legal issues and long separation between the couple.

Staying in a marriage that is over only prolongs the suffering for both parties, the Court cited from previous cases such as Ashok Hurra vs. Rupa Bipin Zaveri (1997) 4 SCC 226 and Shilpa Sailesh vs. Varun Sreenivasan (2022) 15 SCC 754.

“Forcing a couple to remain in a marriage that brings them unhappiness and conflict goes against what marriage is meant to be. In this situation, both individuals would be better off finding their own paths forward,” the Court concluded.