Page | 2

Sl.No Table of Content Page No.

1 Table of content 2

2 Table of abbreviation 3

3 Table of authorities 4

4 In the supreme court of India 5

5 Statement of facts 6

6 Jurisdiction 7

7 Issues 8

8 Statement of argument 9

9 Prayer 11
 Page | 3

Table of Abbreviations

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

1.Hon`ble : Honorable
2.i.e. : That is
3.Cri.L. J : Criminallawjournal
4. ORs : Others
5.Para : Paragraph
6.Sc : Supreme court
7.Scc : supreme court case
8.Sec : Section
9.V./vs : Versus
10.SLP : Special Leave Petition
 Page |4
Table of authorities (source)

Books &Bare acts

1. LAW COMMISSION OF INDIA REPORT on Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage – Another
Ground for Divorce Report No. 217 March 2009
2. HINDU LAW – Paras Diwan
3. THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE 1973- Bare Act
4. THE SPECIAL MARRIAGE ACT (1954) - Bare Act
 Page |5

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appellate Jurisdiction
CIVIL APPEAL NO.5952 OF 2020
(SPECIAL LEAVES PETITION (CIVIL)NO.14361 OF 2019)
BETWEEN:
Mrs. SANIA Appellant

AND:

Mr. CHANDRASHEKAR Respondent

 Page |6

Statement of facts

 Mr. Ramesh and Ms. Sania, both IAS officers from the 2010 batch, were close friends who
decided to marry. They chose the Special Marriage Act of 1954 for their union in 2012.
However, their differing beliefs and the absence of a male child led to marital conflicts,
ultimately resulting in a mutual divorce.

 Amidst challenges, Sania, an IAS officer, moved to Delhi. There, she met Mr. Chandrashekar, a
smart and efficient IAS officer. Despite his existing marriage, they waited for his divorce and
promptly married afterward. However, Sania’s busy administrative schedule led her to postpone
having children for five years. She neglected her husband, but he tried to maintain balance. Sania
even told her daughters, Geeta and Sapna, that Mr. Chandrashekar was not their father, avoiding
their interaction with him.

 In 2018, Sania moved from Delhi to Bangalore due to a transfer. Despite the change in location,
her behavior remained unchanged. She continued to be dominant and verbally abusive toward
Mr. Chandrashekar during their interactions. Meanwhile, Mr. Chandrashekar, alone in Delhi,
hired a domestic servant named Ms. Rama. Their close proximity eventually led to a live-in
relationship.

 In June 2019, Sania discovered Mr. Chandrasekhar’s relationship with Rama. Rama was
pregnant. Sania served a Divorce Notice.

 Sania filed a divorce petition in the Family Court, Delhi, citing irretrievable breakdown of
marriage. The Family Court dismissed the petition. Sania appealed to the Delhi High Court,
seeking maintenance under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005. However, the High Court rejected
the appeal due to existing legal limitations. Sania then filed a Special Leave Petition in the
Supreme Court, arguing for divorce based on irretrievable breakdown of marriage.
 Page |7

Jurisdiction

The appellant hereby submits that the honorable Supreme Court of India has got the jurisdiction to try the
suit under article 136 of the Indian Constitution ,u/s 39 (1) of the Special Marriage Act 1954 and u/s 109
of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908
 Page |8

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appellate Jurisdiction
CIVIL APPEAL NO.5952 OF 2020
(SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL)NO.14361 OF 2019)

BETWEEN
Mrs. SANIA APPELLANT

AND

Mr. CHANDRASHEKAR RESPONDENT

ISSUES

1. Whether the appellant has made out any grounds to interfere in the impugned Judgment of the High
Court and is entitled for the decree of dissolving the marriage on grounds of irretrievable marriage?

2. Whether the appellant is entitled for maintenance under the Domestic Violence Act?

3. What order or decree?

 Page |9

Statement of argument

1. Whether the appellant has made out any grounds to interfere in the impugned judgment of
the High Court and is entitled for the decree of dissolving the marriage on grounds of
irretrievable marriage?

1. The counsel for the respondent humbly submits that the appellant has failed to set out any grounds for
this appeal and this appeal is bereft of merits besides being defective. Hence the appeal may be dismissed.
2. The counsel for the respondent submits that irretrievable break down of marriage as described in
Mayne’s Treatise on Hindu Law & Usage- The foundation of a sound marriage is tolerance, adjustment
and respecting one another. Tolerance to each other’s fault to a certain bearable extent has to be inherent
in every marriage. Petty quibbles, trifling differences should not be exaggerated and magnified to destroy
what is said to have been made in heaven. All quarrels must be weighed from that point of view in
determining what constitutes cruelty in each particular case and always keeping in view the physical and
mental conditions of the parties, their character and social status. A too technical and hypersensitive
approach would be counter-productive to the institution of marriage. The Courts do not have to deal with
ideal husbands and ideal wives. It has to deal with particular man and woman before it1.
3. The counsel for the respondent further submits that the appellant has approached this honourable court
seeking divorce on grounds of “irretrievable “break down of marriage and seeking maintenance under the
domestic violence act 2005. There exists no codified law for seeking to divorce on grounds of
irretrievable marriage.
The high court of Calcutta in Harendra Nath Burman vs Sm. Suprova Burman And Another2 has held
that, Even though irretrievable breakdown simpliciter has not precisely been made a ground of dissolution
of marriage as yet under the Special Marriage Act or the Hindu Marriage Act, the concept thereof has
nevertheless entered in the divorce jurisdiction under those enactments. For, even where the ground put
forward is adultery, cruelty, desertion or the like and the court is satisfied as to the existence of any of
those grounds, the Court, before granting any relief on such grounds, is, both under Section 34(2) of the
Special Marriage Act and Section 23(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, under a mandatory obligation to
"make", whenever possible, "every endeavour to bring about a reconciliation between the parties" and to
grant relief only when such reconciliation is not possible.
In other words, the existence of any such ground alone would not justify a decree of divorce unless the
court is further satisfied that the ground has wrecked the marriage beyond reconciliation or repair. But
even then, the ground for dissolution is not the "irreparable breakdown", but one or more of the grounds
specified in the relevant enactment which might have resulted in such a breakdown.
 P a g e | 10
4.The Supreme Court in Savitri Pandey v. Prem Chandra Pandey held that marriage between the parties
cannot be dissolved only on the averments made by one of the parties that as the marriage between them
has broken down, no useful purpose would be served to keep it alive. The legislature, in its wisdom,
despite observation of the Supreme Court has not thought it proper to provide for dissolution of the
marriage on such averments. There may be cases where it is found that as the marriage has become dead
on account of contributory acts of commission and omission of the parties, no useful purpose would
beserved by keeping such marriage alive. The sanctity of marriage cannot be left at the whims of one of
the annoying spouses.
___________________________________________________________________________________
1 Revised by justice Ranganath Misra
2 AIR 1989 Cal 120(1989)
3 AIR 2002 SC 591
4 ARI 1997 Cal. 321s

2. Whether the appellant is entitled for maintenance under the Domestic Violence Act?
1. The counsel for the respondent humbly submits that the appellant has tried to implicate the respondent
under the domestic Violence Act 2005, and has applied for maintenance under the said act. However, the
learned judge of the High Court of Delhi dismissed the appeal for maintenance upholding the findings of
the learned magistrate. The magistrate has held that there lies no proof of domestic violence as defined u/s
3 of the DV act against the respondent and the matter was dismissed for lack of evidence.
2. The appellant is an IAS officer working under Delhi Cadre and is economically independent and is
enjoying the powers of bureaucracy. It is far from truth that the respondent subjected the appellant to
domestic violence. Both appellant and the respondent are in high positions in the executive and are
conversant with the law of the land. The appellant has misused the provisions of the Domestic Violence
Act which is enacted for the deprived women of her rights and is subjected to violence at her matrimonial
house. It has been held in the High Court of Delhi that the appellant is not entitled for the maintenance
against which lies this appeal. It is submitted that there is no truth in this appeal and the same should be
dismissed.
3. The honourable justice of the Supreme Court of India in Mr. Gurudas Sanvalo Naik and others Vs.
Mrs. Saanvi Gurudas Naik and another1 has held as follows, “It is submitted that the finding about the
wife (original complainant) being subjected to any act of domestic violence is a sine qua non for the
magistrate to grant any relief under the Act and in the absence of any such finding the Courts below were
in error in granting the relief ”. The maintenance is provided to the women who has been subjected to
domestic violence and not otherwise.
4. The respondent submits that the appellant was transferred to Bangalore and was visiting Delhi once in
a while. It is important to note that at the time of the complaint made before the court the appellant was
working in Bangalore. It is therefore on false grounds the appellant has filed for the maintenance under
DV act. The counsel for the respondent submits that the leave petition may be dismissed.
 P a g e | 11

Prayer

WHEREFORE the Respondent most humbly prays that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to:
a. Uphold the judgment passed by the honorable Judge of the High Court in RFA 219/2019.

b. Pass such other orders as this Hon’ble Court deems fit to grant in the circumstances of the case in the
interest of justice.