In this case, a transfer petition was filed by a wife seeking to save her marriage before the Top Court, on Thursday.

A Bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Abhay Shreeniwas Oka was looking into the case.

While the wife said that she was willing to give her marriage one more try, the husband sought to quash the transfer petition citing irretrievable breakdown of marriage. The couple stayed together only for 40 days and has been living separately for almost two years after, the husband said. “We are nothing but strangers now.”

During the hearing, the counsel for the petitioner (wife) told the court that she is willing to give the marriage one more try.

“We are more than happy to hear this. But both parties should want to save the marriage. We (the Court) can’t save the marriage”, the Bench replied.

The husband, who appeared virtually before the Court, told that his marriage was a “honey trap” and that his wife was only interested in his money. He also told the that she had claimed Rs 2 crores as settlement amount.

Narrating her part of the story, the wife submitted that she had been working in Canada and came to India during the COVID-19 lockdown. The woman blamed her husband for ruining her life and career.

After hearing the submissions for a while, Justice Kaul remarked,

“What to do when two good people cannot get along?”

As the hearing progressed, the husband continued with his submissions. He said “I live with my parents and I believe in the virtues of taking care of elders in their old age. And she’s getting a Canadian perspective saying that we should not live with our parents. This is not part of my value system and culture.”

But the Bench had a different view. The bench said,

“Looking after your parents is one thing. Either you should not get married and only look after your parents, Or, you should get married in a scenario where the woman is not working and will look after your parents. You marry somebody who is living in Canada, you ask her to wind up everything and come here, how is it possible……?”

Further the Bench remarked that this was not a case where the powers under Article 142 could be used.

“Not a case where parties have lived separately, where marriage has failed and we can exercise powers under Article 142. This is not a case where we can suo-motu exercise 142. Very difficult to record a satisfaction that there’s a total breakdown of marriage unless both parties say there’s a breakdown of marriage.”

After going through the affidavits filed and various arguments by the parties, the Court recorded that all allegations appeared to be “silly” in nature.

“Actually, from both sides, if I may use the word “silly”, there are some differences, but not even reached a stage of breakdown in marriage. And marriage is not such a casual thing. We are not under western system where you say, you marry today and divorce tomorrow. We can’t impose those methods here…Both parties have not reached a stage where there’s nothing left in the marriage. I honestly don’t believe that a try has been made. If both parties want to separate, if they wanted to adopt a western philosophy, we would have allowed. But it can’t be one-way”, the Bench said.
It urged the couple to go for mediation proceedings.