Courts can't force parties to live together: Punjab and Haryana High Court

Tribune News Service

Chandigarh, August 29

Drawing a distinction between divorce proceedings and criminal matters where the standard of proof is “higher” and beyond reasonable doubt, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has ruled that proving allegations is virtually inconsequential in matrimonial disputes.

The conduct of the parties, their attempts to reconcile during the period of separation, and the seriousness of the allegations against each other were, rather, the benchmarks for deciding matrimonial cases under the Hindu Marriage Act.

The Bench of Justice Sureshwar Thakur and Justice Sudeepti Sharma asserted the factual and practical aspect of such matters was that the courts could not force the parties to live together despite the dismissal of their petition for decree of divorce and “despite the fact of their not being able to prove the ground on which they were asking for dissolution of marriage”.

The Bench asserted it was often difficult to practically prove the allegations made by the parties against each other in matrimonial disputes, where a decree of divorce was sought.

As such, the courts should not decide such cases solely on the “basis of proof of allegations or the evidence presented” as done in criminal cases. After all even if the allegations are proved to be correct beyond reasonable doubt, these are not the criminal cases where the offence is punishable”.

The Bench asserted there could not be a win or lose situation in litigation under HMA. The only win-win situation was the parties amicably settling down their “status” mutually.

The court asserted: “Even if the divorce petition under Section 13 of HMA for grant of decree of divorce is dismissed or for that matter petition under Section 9 of HMA for restitution of conjugal rights is allowed, practically speaking there cannot be any execution in such kind of matters. Since the parties to the litigation are not the properties for which execution can be filed to retrieve it to the other party”.

The Bench added the emotions of the parties were involved and the couple could not be forced to live together. “Once the conduct and the effort to live together during the period of their separation and gravity of allegations made against each other are observed, that would actually be the weights and measures to decide the matrimonial cases under the HMA,” the Bench added.

Referring to the Supreme Court’s “latest law”, the Bench asserted every effort should be made by the courts to save the marriage of the parties. But refusal to grant the decree of dissolution of marriage would amount to forcing the couple to live together under one roof in cases where the courts found absence of possibility of reconciliation since the parties were emotionally hurt. It would also amount to “inviting emotional breakdown of both of them”.