The case of Vikas Kanaujia v. Sarita concerns Dr. Vikas Kanaujia’s petition for divorce from Dr. Sarita, citing grounds of cruelty and the irretrievable breakdown of their marriage. The couple had been separated for more than 22 years and had been involved in several legal disputes during this period. After a thorough review of the case, the Supreme Court decided to grant the divorce, utilizing the authority provided by Article 142 of the Constitution. The decision was based on the acknowledgment of the prolonged and irreparable breakdown of the couple’s relationship.
| Case Title: | Vikas Kanaujia v. Sarita |
| Court: | Supreme Court of India |
| Citation: | Special Leave Petition (Civil) 29464/2019 |
| Petitioner Name: | Dr. Vikas Kanaujia |
| Respondent Name: | Dr. Sarita |
| Judges: | J. Vikram Nath, J. Satish Chandra Sharma |
| Date of Judgement: | 10th July 2024 |
Facts of the case:
Dr. Vikas Kanaujia and Dr. Sarita were married on February 20, 2002, according to Hindu customs and rituals. The marriage experienced difficulties early on, with Dr. Sarita leaving the matrimonial home multiple times within the first month. Initially, Dr. Vikas would persuade her to return, but over time, their relationship deteriorated. Altogether, they cohabited for 23 days initially, then for an additional 20 days, totalling 43 days of living together over a span of more than 22 years.
Dr. Vikas subsequently filed a suit seeking the restitution of conjugal rights, followed by a petition for divorce on the grounds of cruelty. In response, Dr. Sarita filed for maintenance, accusing her husband and his family members of making dowry demands and subjecting her to harassment. The Family Court granted the divorce on the grounds of cruelty, but this decision was later overturned by the High Court. Consequently, Dr. Vikas filed an appeal with the Supreme Court.
Issues raised:
The key issues raised before the two judges of the court were:
- Whether the marriage had irretrievable broken down?
- Whether the respondent’s (Dr. Sarita’s) actions amounted to cruelty?
- Whether the High Court erred in dismissing the petition for divorce?
- Whether the Supreme Court could exercise its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to dissolve the marriage?
Contentions from both sides:
Arguments from Petitioner’s side:
- Dr. Sarita did not consistently fulfil her marital responsibilities and obligations and also showed disrespect towards the family members of Dr. Vikas Kanaujia. She filed a complaint alleging dowry demand and harassment against them, which further strained the family relationship.
- Dr. Sarita’s actions, particularly by persistently filing what were deemed to be unfounded criminal complaints against Dr. Vikas and his family, caused significant mental distress to Dr. Vikas. These complaints, which were perceived as baseless and lacking substance, were viewed as attempts to tarnish Dr. Vikas’s reputation and cause him stress, thereby constituting mental cruelty.
- The marriage between Dr. Vikas Kanaujia and Dr. Sarita had irretrievably broken down, as evidenced by their prolonged separation of over 22 years and the numerous legal disputes they engaged in during this period. The absence of cohabitation and ongoing legal battles indicated that the marital relationship had reached a point where reconciliation was no longer possible.
Arguments from Respondent’s side:
- Dr. Sarita stated that she never refused to live with Dr. Vikas and remained open to continuing their marital life. She also mentioned that Dr. Vikas and his family made repeated requests for dowry, which caused considerable marital discord and distress for her.
- Dr. Sarita contended that the accusations of cruelty made against her by Dr. Vikas were unfounded and without basis. She expressed her willingness to reconcile and work towards mending their relationship, showing her commitment to resolving their issues and maintaining their marriage.
Rationale:
The Supreme Court took into account the extensive separation period of over 22 years, the brief cohabitation of 43 days, and the numerous legal disputes between the parties. Exercising its discretionary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution (Rajib Kumar Roy v. Sushmita Saha, 2023), the Court decided to dissolve the marriage on the grounds of an irretrievable breakdown, despite one spouse’s objection to the dissolution (Shilpa Shailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan, 2023).
The Court noted that the ongoing litigation and hostile relations between Dr. Vikas and Dr. Sarita demonstrated a complete and irreparable breakdown of their marriage. Although Dr. Sarita claimed she was willing to reconcile, her prolonged actions over the years contradicted this assertion, reinforcing the conclusion of an irretrievable breakdown.
Defects of Law:
This case highlights several significant defects in the current legal framework governing matrimonial disputes:
- This is a scenario where the partners have to endure long legal processes together with numerous appeals at different stages of litigation, which put them through emotional and financial strain. This protracted judicial process heightens tension among divorcees, prolongs settlement, and makes it difficult for the parties to start their lives anew.
- The requirements in law that one spouse must prove cruelty or fault as grounds for divorce often end up increasing conflicts between couples instead of helping them end their marriages amicably. This adversarial method may intensify hatred and push parties into an antagonistic position that complicates realization of a peaceful and constructive termination of marriage.
- One notable gap in this system is its lack of clear-cut criteria used to determine whether there has been an irretrievable breakdown of a marriage. As such, different courts will interpret similar principles differently resulting in inconsistent decisions. Failure to provide specific guidelines means that results can differ widely from one case to another thus compromising fairness under the law.
Inference from the case:
Embracing a more pragmatic, less adversarial approach to matrimonial disputes was effectively highlighted by the Supreme Court through its exercise of powers under Article 142. This would mean that in order to deliver complete justice, the Court dissolved the marriage as it recognized that enforcing a legal relationship which had effectively ceased being there for such a long time would be meaningless. The decision therefore acknowledges the practical realities faced by estranged couples and goes beyond the constraints of traditional legal remedies.
This case is significant because it recognizes irretrievable breakdown of marriage as valid grounds for divorce even when there is no mutual consent between both parties. This entails moving away from fault-based grounds for divorce towards prioritizing the emotional and mental well-being of those involved in order to ensure better outcomes are achieved. It represents a step toward an understanding of matrimonial breakdowns that are more compassionate and realistic, making sure that legal resolutions coincide with life experiences and needs of all parties affected. (Rakesh Raman v. Kavita, 2023)
Author:
Rakshita Rawat
Lloyd Law College
BA LLB (4th Year)