New Delhi: Given that forcing the dead marriage only causes more mental anguish, the Supreme Court has said that the courts should divorce in cases when a couple cannot live under one roof.To end the matrimonial dispute that has been going on for the last 16 years, a bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta allowed the husband’s plea to divorce despite opposing his wife. The court said that the couple were living separately after a year of marriage and even the arbitration process failed to resolve their differences. The court called for its special power under Article 142 to perform full justice.“It has been continuously organized by this court that the marriage organization lies in dignity, mutual respect and shared companionship, and when these fundamental aspects are incompletely lost, a couple is forced to be legally bound,” the court said.The welfare and dignity of both husband and wife should be given priority, Apex Court says thatThe Supreme Court said, “This court in Amutha V Subramaniam has emphasized that the welfare and dignity of the two husband -wife should be given priority, and that a dead marriage forces only to continue mental pain and social burden.”In this case, the couple got married in 2008 according to Hindu rites and ceremonies, but the differences slipped between them. She started living separately from October 2009 and the husband filed a divorce petition before a family court after a year. The family court turned down its petition in 2017 and the Delhi High Court also refused to divorce him on the basis of alleged cruelty in 2019. Meanwhile, the wife also filed a case of harassment against her in -laws, it was also rejected for this.Given that the parties have been living separately for more than 16 years and have been a complete termination of cohabitation and consortium, to provoke marriage for all practical and legal purposes, the apex court allowed the husband’s divorce petition.“In the current case, it is clear that due to full contingent and prolonged estrangement, there is an unbreakable broken of marital bond, which cannot be done in any way. In addition, both parties have been entangling the major years of their youth in this marital discord, which has been for more than 15 years, ”said this.“This is clear as a day in the case, the continuation of the marriage will only be fuel enmity and litigation among the parties, which goes on opposite to the ethos of marital harmony envisaged by the law. It will not be corrected with the appeller and his family members to appeal to the appeal to the appeal and the partner, the partner will not correct the fight against his husband and the father -in -law. Fought, ”said this.
