SC Allows Divorce on Grounds of Prolonged Desertion and Communication Denial

The Supreme Court, pursuant to its omnibus powers vested under Article 142 of the Constitution, is empowered to decree the dissolution of a matrimonial union in instances where one spouse has protractedly deserted the other and persists in refusing any attempts at reconciliation. In the case of Prakashchandra Joshi, who has maintained separate residence from his spouse since February 2011, the court, exercising its discretion, granted a decree of divorce.

In a recent pronouncement, the Supreme Court of India has determined that persistent and prolonged desertion by a spouse, coupled with the disregard for repeated attempts by the other partner to seek restitution of conjugal rights, constitutes grounds for irretrievable breakdown of the matrimonial bond. Consequently, the court deems it appropriate to invoke its comprehensive powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to decree the annulment of the marriage.

Contrary to the concurrent findings of both the trial court and the Bombay High Court, a bench comprising Justices B R Gavai and Prashant K Mishra has, in the case of Prakashchandra Joshi, issued a divorce decree. This decision stems from Mr. Joshi’s separation from his wife since February 2011.

In the context of granting divorce on the basis of the irretrievable breakdown of marriage through the invocation of powers under Article 142, the Supreme Court exercised due diligence in scrutinizing the specific circumstances of the case. It was ascertained that the husband had initiated proceedings for the restitution of conjugal rights in 2011 subsequent to his wife’s relocation to Canada, during which she maintained a state of incommunicado, exhibiting a lack of response even to trial court summons.

Thereafter, the husband elected to withdraw the plea for the restitution of conjugal rights and, in its stead, filed a petition for the dissolution of the marriage on grounds of desertion. The trial court rejected the plea, a determination that found concurrence in the verdict of the Bombay High Court. In reaction to these decisions, the husband sought redress by filing an appeal before the Supreme Court.

Justices Gavai and Mishra said, “We see that the parties have been residing separately since Feb 2011 and there has been no contact whatsoever between them during this long period of almost 13 years. The wife is not even responding to the summons issued by the courts. It seems she is no longer interested in continuing the marital relations with the husband. Therefore, we have no hesitation in holding that the present is a case of irretrievable breakdown of marriage as there is no possibility of the couple staying together.”