The Supreme Court closed a case against the husband and his family under the DV Act and directed him to pay Rs. 25 lakhs as permanent alimony to his wife.
The Supreme Court ruled that, under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act), the personal Presence of Parties in the proceedings is not mandatory, except in cases involving a breach of a Protection Order.
This ruling was made in a Criminal Appeal filed by a husband challenging the judgment of the Calcutta High Court, which had dismissed the Criminal Revision petition filed by his authorized representative, his sister.
The two-Judge Bench comprising Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Sandeep Mehta observed, “… there is no requirement for the personal presence of any party in the proceedings under the DV Act, because they are quasi-criminal in nature and do not entail any penal consequences except when there is a breach of a protection order, which is the only offence provided under Section 31 of the DV Act.”
The Bench observed that the husband’s inability to travel to India and appear in the Miscellaneous Case filed by his wife under Section 26 of the DV Act was due to the impoundment of his passport, a factor beyond his control.
“Consequently, the order of the learned JMFC directing the initiation of extradition proceedings against the appellant as a consequence of his non-appearance, despite being aware of the fact of impounding of the passport of the appellant, is untenable and unsustainable in the eyes of the law”, it further held.
Facts of the Case
The Appellant (husband) and the Respondent (wife) were married in February 2018 following Hindu rites and ceremonies. In March, they moved to the United States of America (USA), where the husband had been working as a Software Engineer since 2014.
The husband alleged that while living in the USA, he was subjected to continuous domestic abuse by his wife but initially endured it. However, he later reported an incident to the local police, seeking protection and showing visible injuries on his face. Though he clarified that he did not wish to press charges, he requested the police to issue a warning to his wife. Despite this intervention, the alleged abuse continued.
In April, the wife allegedly became enraged and scratched the husband’s face, causing significant injuries. Unable to tolerate the situation any longer, the husband called the police again, resulting in the wife being charged with second-degree assault. This incident led to their estrangement just 80 days into the marriage, following which the couple returned to India.
When the time came to return to the USA, the wife refused to accompany the husband. Shortly after, she initiated multiple legal proceedings against him and his family members in various courts and forums across the country. As a result of these cases, the concerned authorities impounded the husband’s passport in October 2018.
Between 2018 and 2020, the wife continued residing in the same house with her mother-in-law and allegedly subjected her to severe physical and mental harassment, ultimately forcing her to leave the house and seek refuge at her daughter’s residence. Consequently, the husband’s mother filed a Complaint Case against the wife. In retaliation, the wife filed an application under Section 26 of the DV Act against the husband and his family.
When the husband failed to appear before the Trial Court, the authorities were directed to initiate extradition proceedings against him. Aggrieved by this, he filed a Criminal Revision before the High Court through his sister, which was dismissed. He then approached the Supreme Court.
Reasoning
The Supreme Court in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, said, “The aforesaid facts give us the impression that there was hardly any cordiality or meaningful marital relationship that flowed from the marriage between the parties. It is evident that the relationship between the parties appears to be strained from the beginning and has further soured over the years.”
The Court observed that, regardless of the reasons for the spouses living separately, the passage of time has likely caused any marital love or affection that once existed between them to fade away, making this a clear case of irretrievable breakdown of marriage.
“The admitted long-standing separation, nature of differences, prolonged and multiple litigations pending adjudication, and the unwillingness of the parties to reconcile are evidence enough to establish beyond all manner of doubt that the marriage between the parties has broken down irretrievably and that there is no scope whatsoever for marriage to survive. Thus, no useful purpose, emotional or practical, would be served by continuing the soured relationship. On the basis of the above factual matrix, the present appears to be a case of irretrievable breakdown of marriage”, it added.
The Court further noted that, in addition to the irreconcilable nature of the parties’ relationship, another factor supporting the exercise of power under Article 142(1) of the Constitution of India is the absence of a child from the marriage. As a result, any decision allowing the parties to separate would impact only them and not an innocent child.
“Thus, this is a fit case warranting the exercise of the discretion conferred under Article 142(1) of the Constitution of India to dissolve the marriage between the parties on the grounds of irretrievable breakdown of marriage”, it said.
Additionally, the Court noted that the wife had a monthly income of ₹50,000, while the husband was earning ₹8 lakhs per month in 2018, and his current earnings were estimated to exceed ₹10 lakhs per month.
“The appellant, in his rejoinder affidavit, admitted that while he was earning Rs. 8 lakh per month in 2018, however, at present, he is unemployed and is facing challenges in securing employment in India due to multiple cases filed by the respondent”, it also noted.
The Court opined that a one-time settlement as alimony for the wife would be a fair resolution.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned judgment, dissolved the marriage, closed the case against the husband and his family, directed the husband to pay ₹25 lakhs as permanent alimony to his wife, and ordered the authorities to release his passport.