Punjab and Haryana High Court has highlighted that the duty of preserving marriages extends beyond the couples to the courts as well.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has highlighted that the duty of preserving marriages extends beyond the couples to the courts as well. The courts are expected to make every possible effort to reconcile marital disputes. However, the Bench clarified that courts cannot force couples to live together if their relationship is beyond repair.
Justice Sureshwar Thakur and Justice Sudeepti Sharma emphasized that Section 23(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act mandates the courts to attempt reconciliation in disputes, as these often stem from minor issues that can be resolved through judicial intervention.
“The responsibility to save the marriage lies with both the court and the parties involved, as much as possible. But when there is no hope, and it seems futile to keep the parties bound indefinitely, it is better for both the parties and their children to separate,” the Bench stated.
The judges made it clear that husbands and wives are not “properties” that courts can force to live together. This statement was made while reviewing a prolonged matrimonial dispute where the couple had been living separately for nearly 19 years.
A key aspect of the case was the wife’s decision to file an FIR against the husband, which led to his conviction. The Bench noted that the wife’s action constituted cruelty, making it practically impossible for the couple to cohabit.
The Bench further noted that the FIR and resulting conviction created mental cruelty for the husband, making it unreasonable to expect the couple to continue living together. “The wife’s action constitutes cruelty, as it is practically impossible for the party against whom an FIR is lodged to live together under one roof. Consequently, this situation amounts to mental cruelty inflicted on the appellant/husband by the respondent/wife.”
The judges also criticized the lower court for failing to recognize the irretrievable breakdown of the marriage and not considering the practical implications of the couple’s continued separation and lack of reconciliation efforts.
“The lower court failed to consider that matrimonial matters are inherently sensitive. Courts must carefully consider the practical aspects and consequences of the parties living together. Once it is observed that the marriage has irretrievably broken down, no fruitful purpose would be served by directing them to live together, and this would not amount to doing justice to both parties,” the Bench observed.
