The article is written by Nishimita Tah. The article  provides a comprehensive overview of the landmark judgement delivered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Satish Sitole vs. Ganga (2008). It exhaustively covers the facts, issues, contentions, and the court’s ruling. The article deals with Article 142 of the Indian Constitution, which  talks about the dissolution of the marriage, which had broken down irretrievably. An initiative was taken to analyse the case in the writer’s own words in a precise manner. 

Introduction 

According to Hindu ideology, the marital relationship is governed by the applicability of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, which precludes a broken marriage irretrievably as the cornerstone for judicial separation from a marriage. However, if the couple believes that there is no possibility of resuming their marital duties, they cannot legally end their marriage unless it is proved through the existence of other grounds such as cruelty, desertion, adultery, etc.

The Constitution of India grants special powers to specific courts to ensure a smooth and conflict-free society. The Supreme Court of India, being a responsible institution for the delivery of justice to the people, inherits discretionary powers granted to it by the Constitution under Article 142. Article 142 empowers the Supreme Court to pass the decree that is necessary for the fulfillment of complete justice in pending matters before it. The article also grants special leave against orders from any subordinate court in India. 

Download Now

The Hon’ble Supreme Court has often used Article 142 to pass orders aimed at providing complete justice to victims, ensuring that the final judgement fully addresses the issue involved in the case. The special powers under Article 142  were used by the Court to grant divorce to end all the ongoing legal disputes between the parties because their marriages were irreparably broken. 

Background of the case 

The case of Satish Sitole vs. Ganga (2008) reveals the need to add an irretrievable breakdown of marriage as a ground for divorce. 

The background of the case entails that the respondent, Ganga, left her matrimonial home on 21-08-1994 and went back to her parents. Since the time the respondent left, she has lived separately from the appellant. The couple had lived separately for 14 years out of 16 years of married life. Thus, the Family Court granted a decree for divorce stating that the marriage had irretrievably broken down and ordered the appellant to pay alimony of Rs. 1,50,000. 

In this case, harsh allegations were made against each other as grounds for divorce, including desertion, cruelty, and dowry demands, but not an irretrievable breakdown of marriage. Despite the birth of a son born out of wedlock, Chetan, on 28-02-1993, the couple could not reconcile. The Hon’ble Supreme Court used its power under the ambit of Article 142 of the Indian Constitution to dissolve the marriage, as it had broken down irretrievably.

Details of the case

Name of the Case: Satish Sitole vs. Smt. Ganga (2008)

Type of Case: Civil Appeal 

Date of Judgement: 10-07-2008

Name of the Court: Supreme Court of India 

Equivalent citations: Civil Appeal No. 7567 of 2004

Bench: Altamas Kabir J., Aftab Alam, J.J.

Parties to the case: Satish Sitole (Appellant) and Smt. Ganga. (Respondent)

Relevant statutes and provisions: Article 142 of the Constitution of India, Section 85 and Section 86 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (Section 498A of the Indian Penal Act, 1860), Section 13(B) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

Facts of the case 

  • On 22.05.1992, a marriage was solemnised between Satish Sitole (the appellant) and Ganga (the respondent) according to Hindu rites and customs. Through this marriage, a son named “Chetan” was born from the wedlock. 
  • However, Ganga (the respondent) left her matrimonial home and went back to her parents. Due to several reasons, couples have been living separately. Thereafter, the parties took the assistance of the judiciary, and a notice was dispatched by Satish Sitole to her wife Ganga requesting her to return to her matrimonial home.
  • On 20.10.1995, a complaint was filed under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code,1860, against Satish Sitole and his in-laws, alleging demand for dowry. However, the appellant and his family members were discharged after the trial. 
  • Satish Sitole moved to the court for the request to issue a search warrant before the Sub-divisional Magistrate Ganga appeared before the Magistrate’s court and agreed to return to her matrimonial home. However, she did not return, as she had agreed.
  • The appellant filed a matrimonial case before the Additional District Judge, alleging cruelty and desertion under Section 13(1)(i-a) and (i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, for dissolution of marriage. Thus, the respondent proved his case on grounds of cruelty and desertion. The trial court did not grant a decree of divorce, instead, the court passed a decree of judicial separation.
  • An appeal was filed by the respondent against the decree of judicial separation passed by the trial court, and a cross-appeal was filed by the appellant seeking a divorce. However, the High Court overturned the trial court’s decision. The trial court’s decree of judicial separation was based on the appellant’s conduct, which forced the respondent to leave her matrimonial home. However, the High Court ruled that it was not convinced that the appellant was treated with cruelty by the respondent, dismissed the appellant’s appeal for divorce, and allowed the respondent’s appeal.

Trial Court Decision

The appellant filed a matrimonial case seeking a divorce on the grounds of cruelty and desertion under the ambit of Section 13(1)(1a)(1b) of the Hindu Marriage Act. Although the respondent’s acts of cruelty and desertion were proven, the trial court did not grant the divorce but instead issued a decree for judicial separation.

High Court Decision

An appeal was filed by the respondent against the decree of judicial separation passed by the trial court, and a cross-appeal was filed by the appellant seeking a divorce. However, the High Court overturned the trial court’s decision. The trial court’s decree of judicial separation was based on the appellant’s conduct, which forced the respondent to leave her matrimonial home. However, the High Court ruled that it was not convinced that the appellant was treated with cruelty by the respondent, dismissed the appellant’s appeal for divorce, and allowed the respondent’s appeal. The trial court judgement was set aside.

Issues raised 

Should the marriage between the parties that had broken down emotionally and practically be continued for namesake, or should it be dissolved?

Arguments of the parties

Appellant 

  • It was argued that even though Satish Sitole failed to prove his allegations of cruelty and desertion, which he put forward to seek marital dissolution, the court should still grant relief due to the irretrievable breakdown of the marriage, using its power under Article 142 of the Constitution. 
  • It was also contended that, in 16 years of married life, the parties have been living separately for 14 years, much of which was spent in contentious legal battles and making harsh allegations against each other.
  • It was also contended that there was no chance of reconciliation in the marriage between them and that appropriate orders should be issued in order to put an end to the pending litigation between the parties.

Respondent 

  • The respondent contended that there was a possibility of reconciliation and that the petitioner was exaggerating the differences between us and had not made adequate efforts to re-establish the marital relationship.
  • The respondent refused the allegations of cruelty and contended that the petitioner had failed to provide considerable evidence to support his claims. She also argued and maintained that the disputes cited by the petitioner were usual in any marriage and did not amount to cruelty.
  • The respondent contended that she had been left without appropriate financial backing and that the petitioner had avoided his duty to maintain her.
  • The respondent also contended that divorce would leave her in a precarious financial situation.

Laws Discussed

Article 142 of the Constitution of India

The term “complete justice” follows a utilitarian perspective, which means the benefit of the masses. The purpose behind this concept is to deliver justice, which ensures citizens’ rights are not violated in any way.  In the case of A. Jitendra Nath vs. Jubilee Hills Coop. House Building Society and Ors. (2006), the Supreme Court stated that Article 142 obligates the court not to pass an order that will cause injustice to others. In general, it means that the delivery of justice is in accordance with the established law, ensuring that none of the fundamental rights of individuals are overlooked. 

The concept of “complete justice” under the constitutional framework refers to the power of the Supreme Court under Article 142 of the Indian Constitution. The Article grants the Supreme Court the authority to pass any decree or order that is deemed necessary for doing complete justice in the matter pending before any court. In the case of Satish Sitole vs. Ganga (2008), the Hon’ble Supreme Court utilised its power provided under  Article 142 of the Indian Constitution to pass a decision to dissolve a marriage on the ground of irretrievable breakdown. The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, does not specifically recognise irretrievable breakdown of marriage as a ground for divorce, however, the Supreme Court has power under Article 142 to grant a divorce to the parties when the marriage is beyond reconciliation.

The Indian Constitution considers that every citizen of India must achieve “complete justice.” Article 142 of the Constitution of India grants the power to the Hon’ble Supreme Court to pass a decree to achieve “complete justice.”

Article 142(1) of the Indian Constitution grants the discretionary power to the Hon’ble Supreme Court to pass any decree or order to provide complete justice in pending cases. The key points of Article 142(1) are as follows:

  • Article 142(1) provides the Hon’ble Supreme Court with extensive powers to ensure complete justice in any pending case before the court.
  • Any decree or order passed shall be enforceable across India as prescribed by the law made by the Parliament, and in the absence of such a law, as may be prescribed by an order from the President.
  • The Supreme Court has the discretion to pass the order if it considers it necessary.
  • The orders passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court under Article 142(1) are final and binding.
  • Article 142(1) provides a broader scope for the court to address a wide range of legal issues and cases in a comprehensive manner.
  • The purpose of this article is to ensure justice by overriding procedural restrictions that prevent the court from delivering complete justice.

Article 142(2) of the Indian Constitution envisages the Supreme Court with broad powers that ensure the enforcement of its decrees and orders. The key points of Article 142(2) are as follows:

  • Article 142(2) of the Constitution allows the Hon’ble Supreme Court to produce an order necessary for securing the appearance of any person, the production of documents, or the investigation or punishment of any contempt of itself.
  • The Hon’ble Supreme Court has the power to order the conduct of investigations to ensure the proper administration of justice. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has the authority to punish for contempt of its order, which is a vital part of maintaining the dignity and authority of the judiciary.

The concept of “complete justice” was linked with the present scenario of the case.

  • Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage: The Hon’ble Supreme Court recognised the marriage between the married couples had been broken down irretrievably, and there was no scope for reconciliation. Satish Sitole and Ganga had been living separately for a very long time, and the spark of the relationship was beyond repair. 
  • Power under the scope of Article 142 of the Constitution: The power was exercised to ensure complete justice. The Hon’ble Supreme Court availed itself of the power under the scope of Article 142 to dissolve the marriage of Satish Sitole and Ganga. The power prevented them from future suffering and allowed the couple to move forward in their lives. Despite this, the statutory grounds for divorce were absent.
  • Precedent for future cases: The judicial decision taken in the present case sets an example for further cases where the Hon’ble Supreme Court can exercise its powers under the scope of Article 142 of the Indian Constitution to grant relief in similar cases of irretrievable breakdown of marriage. However, it fills the gap in the statutory law.

Section 85 of the BNS, 2023

The scope of Section 85 under the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 deals with cruelty towards married women by their husbands or relatives.

Definition of Cruelty under Sections 85

According to the section, it states that “whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects women to cruelty shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may be extendable to three years and shall also be liable for a fine.”

The purpose of this section is to define cruelty as:

  • Any willful conduct of nature that likely causes grave injury or danger to life, limb or health, including mentally or physically, to the woman.
  • Harassment with the intention to force her in relation to abiding by any unlawful demand over property or valuable security. 

The scope of Sections 85 and 86 under the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 states the offence of cruelty by a husband or his relatives towards women. The Section is exercised to protect married women from being trapped under an offensive act of cruelty by their husbands , family or relatives. In the case of Satish Sitole vs. Ganga (2008), the Hon’ble Supreme Court dealt with the matter in relation to Section 13(B)  of the Hindu Marriage Act (1955), which is connected to divorce by mutual consent. However, the case was related to the issues of divorce , which were interlinked with Sections 85 and 86 under the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023, in context to the allegations of divorce that accompanied divorce proceedings.

Section 13(B) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

Section 13(B) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, confers divorce by mutual consent. The ingredients of the section are as follows:

  1. Involvement of both parties in the marriage can give their presence while filing the petition for divorce by mutual consent.
  2. The presence of both parties is mandatory before the district court.
  3. The parties must live separately for a period of one year or more after the marriage.
  4. The reason for separation can be due to any circumstances but reveals that the parties have not been living together as married couples.
  5. The section also states that the couple must mutually give consent to the dissolution of the marriage. There should be no coercion, fraud, or undue influence while giving consent for separation.
  6. In the case of a cooling-off period, the District Court orders a period of six months to consider the decision after filing the petition. Thus, the period can be extended to eighteen months from the date of filing the petition.
  7. Once the cooling-off period ends, the couples have to mandatorily move before the court to confirm their consent for further decision.
  8. The district court verifies the consent is genuine and also verifies whether the terms and conditions made for the cooling-off period are met by the couples or not. 
  9. If the district court is satisfied, the court grants the decree of divorce by mutual consent for the dissolution of marriage between the couples.

In the present case of Satish Sitole vs. Ganga, the Hon’ble Supreme Court decided the case in accordance with the context of Section 13(B) of the Act, which elaborates on the applicability of divorce by mutual consent. According to the facts of the case, the couples were living separately for 14 years and could not meet the grounds for reconciliation. Both the husband and wife agreed to the decision of availing themselves of divorce by mutual consent, but later, one party stepped back from the decision of divorce. 

The case emphasises the importance of mutual consent for divorce under Section 13(B) of the Act. It requires both parties to agree to the divorce when filing the petition and when the final decree is issued. The case illustrates that if one party withdraws their consent before the final decree, the divorce by mutual consent can be nullified. 

Cases Discussed 

Romesh Chander vs. Savitri (1995) 

  • Facts: In this Romesh Chander vs. Savitri (1995) case, Romesh Chander and Savitri were married in 1962. Romesh Chander filed a petition for divorce on the grounds of cruelty and desertion.
  • Issues: The issues involved were: 
  1. Whether Savitri’s (respondent) behaviour amounts to cruelty?
  2. Whether Savitri deserted Romesh Chander without reasonable cause?
  3. Is Romesh Chander entitled to avail of the decree of divorce?
  • Held: The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that Savitri’s behaviour amounted to cruelty. It was also held that the respondent had deserted Romesh Chander without reasonable cause. In conclusion, the court also held that Romesh Chander was entitled to a decree of divorce on the grounds of cruelty and desertion.

In the present case, following the decision in Romesh Chander’s case, it was concluded that the marriage is essentially over and beyond repair, and keeping it intact amounts to cruelty. In accordance with this view, the powers exercised under the ambit of Article 142 of the Constitution direct that the marriage of the appellant and respondent shall stand dissolved. The appellant’s duty is to pay the respondent a sum of Rs. 2 lakh by way of permanent alimony. 

Anjana Kishore vs. Puneet Kishore (2002) 

  • Facts: In this Anjana Kishore vs. Puneet Kishore (2002) case, the couple got married, and disputes arose between the couple, leading to various legal proceedings. Anjana Kishore filed a petition under the scope of Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking restitution of conjugal rights. The husband filed a petition for divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, on the grounds of cruelty.
  • Issues: The issues were:
  1. Whether Anjana Kishore was entitled to a decree for restitution of conjugal rights?
  2. Whether Puneet Kishore had established sufficient grounds for divorce on the basis of cruelty?
  • Held: The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the allegations made by Puneet against the wife Anjana did not amount to cruelty, which was not substantiated by evidence according to the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The Court also observed that the disputes between the parties were insignificant and could not be taken as grounds for divorce. However, the Hon’ble Supreme Court focused on the necessity of reconciliation and preserving the marital relationship. 

Swati Verma vs. Rajan Verma (2004)

  • Facts: The facts of the case of Swati Verma vs. Rajan Verma (2004) state that Swati filed a petition for the dissolution of marriage on the grounds of cruelty. The allegations arose that she had been subjected to physical and mental cruelty, and Rajan had deserted her for a period of less than 2 years immediately after filing the petition.
  • Issues: Whether Swati had proven that her husband Rajan had treated her with cruelty? 
  • Held: The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that Swati had established the grounds of cruelty and desertion under the scope of Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The court also observed that Rajan had treated his wife with the offence of cruelty and deserted her for a period of fewer than 2 years. However, the Hon’ble Supreme Court granted the decree for divorce in favour of Swati.

The cases of Anjana Kishore vs. Puneet Kishore(2002) and Swati Verma vs. Rajan Verma (2004) were referred to in the present case of Satish Sitole vs. Ganga (2008). The exercise of the powers of Article 142 of the Indian Constitution stated that the decrees of divorce were passed to put an end to further litigation pending between the married couples on the grounds that their marriage had broken down irretrievably.

Durga Prasanna Tripathy vs. Arundhati Tripathy (2005)

  • Facts: In this Durga Prasanna Tripathy vs. Arundhati Tripathy (2005) case, Durga and Arundhati were married in the year 1982, and a son was born from wedlock. The couple started living separately due to serious disputes and differences between them. Durga filed a petition for divorce on the grounds of cruelty and desertion under the ambit of Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
  • Issues: Whether the marriage between them breaks down irretrievably? Is the ground for cruelty and desertion for divorce established by the husband?
  • Held: The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the couple had been living separately for over 18 years and there was no chance of reconciliation. The court also held that there was no possibility of the parties living together. It was also held that the marriage is dead, and continuing the formal bond serves no purpose. The court passed the decree of divorce on the grounds of an irretrievable breakdown of marriage.

In the case of Durga Prasanna Tripathy vs. Arundhati Tripathy (2005), which was referred to in the Satish Sitole vs. Ganga case stating that the marriage had broken down irretrievably without the scope of reconciliation, the Court affirmed the decree of divorce passed by the family court and directed to pay the alimony to the extent of Rs. 1, 50,000.

Judgement of the case

The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the marriage between the parties should be dissolved due to irretrievable breakdown and directed the appellant to pay the respondent a sum of 2,00,000 as permanent alimony. Furthermore, the appellant was ordered to pay the costs of the appeal to the respondent, assessed at Rs. 25,000. 

Rationale behind this judgement

The fact of the present case was that out of 16 years of marriage, the appellant and the respondent had been living separately for 14 years, and therefore, an attempt toward reconciliation would be futile. The court found that the marriage had broken down irretrievably and continuance of such marriage is an act of cruelty. 

Hence, the verdict of Romesh Chander’s case was referred to in the present case, stating that when a marriage is found dead emotionally and practically and there is no chance of its being retrieved, the continuance of such a marriage would amount to cruelty. Therefore, the Supreme Court, while exercising its power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, directed the dissolution of the marriage of Satish Sitole and Ganga, with the condition that Satish Sitole would transfer his house to Ganga.

Analysis of the case

The Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that breaking down marriage irretrievably was the valid ground for divorce, which is not explicitly mentioned under the ambit of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The decision mandated legislative reforms to include the irretrievable breakdown of marriage as a ground for divorce, aligning the law with societal norms, and ensuring complete justice. The Hon’ble Supreme Court also invoked its power under the ambit of Article 142 to dissolve the marriage. 

The case highlights the power of the Supreme Court under the ambit of Article 142 to dissolve the marriage, which guarantees that complete justice was served according to the facts and circumstances of the present case. In view of the author, it somehow demonstrates the court’s inclination to adapt to societal realities. It highlights the weak points of the existing legal structure, which compelled the court to use extraordinary constitutional powers. The present case has been referred to in several other Indian cases, which sets a precedent for divorce cases involving “irretrievable breakdown of marriage.”

The present case was referred to by the courts in several subsequent judgments. In the case of Anil Kumar Jain vs. Maya Jain (2009), Anil Kumar Jain filed for divorce from Maya Jain on the grounds of cruelty and desertion. The marriage between the parties was solemnised but with time, differences between them arose, leading to strained relationships. Anil Kumar Jain claimed that Maya had treated him with cruelty and had deserted without any reasonable cause. The issues raised were whether the act of Maya constituted cruelty as per the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The issue was raised as to whether Anil Kumar Jain was entitled to a decree of divorce on these grounds. The Delhi High Court referred to Satish Sitole vs. Ganga (2008) while granting a divorce to emphasise the importance of considering the husband’s behaviour and the wife’s testimony. 

In the case of Narendra vs. K. Meena (2016), the facts revolve around a matrimonial dispute between Narendra and K. Meena. Narendra filed for divorce on the grounds of cruelty, alleging that Meena had made false allegations against him and his family. K. Meena compelled him to get separated from his family. The issues raised were whether the behaviour of K. Meena amounted to cruelty against Narendra and whether compelling Narendra to get separated from his family constituted  cruelty. The Hon’ble Supreme Court cited the case of Satish Sitole vs. Ganga (2008) to grant a divorce under the ambit of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, due to the irretrievable breakdown of the marriage. 

However, in the case of Raj Talreja vs. Kavita Talreja (2017), the facts revolve around the fact that Raj Talreja filed a petition for divorce from Kavita on the grounds of cruelty. He claimed that Kavita Talreja had treated him with cruelty, which made it impossible for him to live with her. The couple had been married for several years, but their relationship had become strained due to various reasons. The issue raised was whether the conduct of Kavita Talreja amounted to cruelty as defined under the ambit of the Hindu Marriage Act. The second issue was whether Raj Talreja was entitled to a decree of divorce on the grounds of cruelty. The Bombay High Court cited the case of Satish Sitole vs. Ganga (2008) to address the grounds for divorce based on the irretrievable breakdown of the marriage.

Conclusion 

The Law Commission of India and the Hon’ble Supreme Court have recommended that the irretrievable breakdown of marriage should be included as the ground of divorce. The passing of the decree of divorce on the grounds of an irretrievably broken marriage should be codified to make the implementation more clear and uniform. At present, divorce for the irretrievable breakdown of marriage can only be granted by the Supreme Court under Article 142 of the Indian Constitution.

References

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here