SC refuses divorce to couple who lived together 40 days after marriage

Expressing hope that “good sense would prevail” over the estranged couple who decided to part ways after residing together for merely 40 days, the Supreme Court refused to dissolve their marriage. 

A division bench of Justices Rajesh Bindal and Aravind Kumar, on Tuesday, dismissed the plea filed by wife, a permanent resident of Canada, seeking to transfer divorce plea filed by the husband from the family court in Mangaluru to one in Mumbai. In response, the husband had sought that their marriage be dissolved.

Judges: It takes time to settle down in marriage

“We do not find this to be a fit case for exercise of power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India as good sense may prevail on the parties. They had lived together only for 40 days. It takes time to settle down in marriage,” noted the bench. 

The couple met over social networking site in December 2019 and they got married on December 5, 2020 as per the Christian rites and customs at Our Lady of Miracles Church, Mangaluru. They started residing together in Mangaluru with husband’s aged parents. 

However, the wife alleged that within few days of marriage, the husband and his family started mistreating and abusing her. He sent her back to Mumbai where her parents reside. When she tried to return after easing of restrictions during Covid-19 pandemic in July 2021, he refused to take her back. She then approached local police.

Husband claimed wife was used to Canadian lifestyle and did not enjoy Indian culture

Refuting the allegations, the husband claimed that she was used to Canadian lifestyle and did not enjoy Indian culture and traditions and started picking up fights. He then filed for divorce before the family court citing breakdown of marriage. 

The court noted that the mediation between the parties failed. In his report, retired chief justice of Punjab and Haryana High Court SJ Vazifdar, stated that during the over 50 hours of mediation, the wife joined in through video conference facility from Canada. 

It was also noted that she had taken up job with a bank in Mumbai. 

The SC dismissed the wife’s plea for transfer of case “considering the status of the parties”. The apex court said: “She can travel to Mangaluru to attend the hearing of the case and can also seek exemption from appearance whenever required...” 

The judges also said that there is no ground for directing the husband to pay the expenses to wife for travelling to Mangaluru. “However, still in case she feels like seeking reimbursement of expenses she shall be at liberty to file application before the court concerned, which may be examined on its own merits,” the court added.