In a recent verdict, the Supreme Court of India has ruled that parties cannot seek dissolution of marriage on the grounds of irretrievable breakdown by filing a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution. The five-judge constitution bench headed by Justice S K Kaul has held that such attempts must be spurned and not accepted, as parties should not be permitted to circumvent the judicial process by resorting to writ jurisdiction.
The bench has emphasized that the remedy for a person aggrieved by a decision of the competent judicial forum is to approach the superior tribunal or forum for redressal of their grievance. The parties should not be allowed to bypass the process by seeking divorce through writ petitions. The bench has also noted that relief under Article 32 can only be sought to enforce the rights conferred by Part III of the Constitution and on the proof of infringement thereof.
However, the bench has also clarified that the Supreme Court has the discretion to dissolve a marriage on the grounds of irretrievable breakdown under Article 142 (1) of the Constitution. It has further held that the court can grant divorce by mutual consent while dispensing with the six-month waiting period mandated under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
This verdict is significant as it upholds the importance of the judicial process and discourages parties from seeking shortcuts to obtain a divorce. It reaffirms the principle that writ jurisdiction under Article 32 of the Constitution is not a tool for seeking relief in personal matters such as marital disputes.
It is important to note that while the court has emphasized the importance of following the proper legal process, it has also recognized the need for flexibility in certain situations. The court has acknowledged that it has the power to dissolve a marriage on the grounds of irretrievable breakdown in appropriate cases, and that it can grant divorce by mutual consent while dispensing with the waiting period mandated by law.
Overall, the Supreme Court’s verdict strikes a balance between the need for upholding the integrity of the legal process and the need for flexibility in exceptional cases. It reaffirms the importance of respecting the legal process and avoiding shortcuts while providing for necessary flexibility in exceptional cases.