Don't want to die with 'stigma' of 'divorcee': SC respects sentiments of 82-year-old wife, rejects husband's plea

In a culmination of over two decades of legal proceedings, the Supreme Court has upheld the sentiments of an 82-year-old wife, who expressed her desire not to end her 60-year-old marriage with a former Indian Air Force (IAF) officer, now 89 years old. As per a TOI report, the court rejected the plea for the termination of their marital ties, bringing an end to a long-standing legal dispute. The couple, who hails from Chandigarh, had entered into wedlock in 1963, and their life together remained normal until January 1984 when the IAF officer was transferred to Madras.

The complications in their relationship arose when the officer's transfer led to a separation. His wife, a teacher, opted to stay with her in-laws and later with her son, refusing to join him in Madras. When attempts to reach an amicable settlement proved futile, the husband filed a petition for divorce on the grounds of cruelty and desertion.

The husband contended that his wife did not extend any support, even failing to visit him during his stay at an Army hospital following a heart attack. He also accused her of lodging complaints against him with his superiors, tarnishing his reputation and causing him emotional distress. These actions, he claimed, constituted cruelty on her part.


Since filing the divorce petition in a District Court in March 1997, the couple had been living apart. The husband argued that their marriage had suffered an irretrievable breakdown, and thus, the court should grant them a divorce under Article 142 of the Constitution.

However, his wife, an elderly woman, expressed her wish not to carry the "stigma" of being a "divorcee" to her grave. She asserted that she had made continuous efforts to uphold the sanctity of their marriage and was still willing to care for her husband with the assistance of their son. She contended that a lengthy period of separation alone should not be seen as an irretrievable breakdown of the marriage.

The Chandigarh District Court initially granted them a divorce in February 2000. But after the wife's appeal, a single-judge bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court reversed the decision in December 2000. In February 2009, a division bench of the High Court upheld the single-judge bench's ruling, leading the husband to approach the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court concurred with the High Court's findings regarding cruelty and desertion, stating that the husband had failed to prove these allegations according to the law. In a judgment delivered on October 10 by Justices Aniruddha Bose and Bela M Trivedi, it was noted, "There is no dispute that the parties are staying separate since last many years, and all the efforts to bring them together have failed. Under the circumstances, one may presume that the marriage is emotionally dead and beyond salvation and that there is an irretrievable breakdown of marriage between the parties."

The ruling, however, questioned whether an irretrievable breakdown of marriage should necessarily lead to a divorce decree under Article 142 of the Constitution of India. It referenced a prior decision by a Constitution Bench in May of the same year, which stated that the court could utilize Article 142 powers to grant divorce on grounds of irretrievable breakdown of marriage.