Facebook love ends in facepalm marriage, Supreme Court says give it time

The court refuses to transfer divorce proceedings at the wife's request on the assumption that as a permanent Canadian resident, she travels regularly. It also refuses to grant a divorce to the parties, observing that "good sense might prevail on the parties" since the married couple had lived together for only 40 days and "it takes time to settle down in marriage".

 —

ON Tuesday, the Supreme Court rejected the request of a woman to transfer her divorce proceedings from Mangaluru to Mumbai, on the grounds that she was a permanent resident of Canada and thus "must be travelling abroad regularly", and that she could travel to Mangaluru to attend the case hearings and could seek exemption from appearance whenever required.

A division Bench comprising Justices Rajesh Bindal and Arvind Kumar was ruling on a transfer petition filed by the woman.

The Bench also observed that both the wife and husband were well-educated and engaged in their own jobs and professions, noting that there was no child born in wedlock to be taken care of.

The Bench also opined that on account of the financial conditions of both parties, there was no need for the husband to be directed to pay expenses to the wife for traveling to Mangaluru. It, however, clarified that if the wife feels like seeking reimbursement of expenses, she would be at liberty to file an application before the court concerned, which may be examined on its own merits.

It additionally refused to grant a divorce to the parties in exercise of its inherent powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, observing that "good sense" might prevail on the parties since the married couple had lived together  for only 40 days and, as per the court, it takes time to settle down in marriage.

The husband had demanded divorce on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of the marriage.

Rejecting the respondent-husband's contentions, the court held, "The judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent are distinguishable as in those cases proceedings had travelled up to this court after decision by the courts below in divorce proceedings, where the parties had led evidence in old matrimonial dispute. There was sufficient material on record and the ground of which the marriage was dissolved in exercise of power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, was irretrievable breakdown of marriage which otherwise is not a ground in the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for dissolution of marriage."

The petitioner and the respondent had met through Facebook in December 2019, and had married on December 5, 2020, as per Christian rites and customs in Mangaluru.

The wife alleged that after marriage, she was ill-­treated, insulted and humiliated by the husband and his family members. It was further alleged that the husband, on the pretext of giving her a break for 10–15 days, booked a one-­way ticket for his wife and sent her to Mumbai on January 15, 2021. Thereafter, he disconnected all relations with her.

On July 5, 2021, after the COVID pandemic restrictions were lifted, the wife returned to Mangaluru, but she was allegedly denied entry into her matrimonial home by husband and his family members.

The wife had then lodged a complaint at a police station at Pandeshwar, Mangaluru. The superintendent of police had intervened and called the husband to the police station, where he had disclosed that he had already issued a divorce notice to his wife and was in the process of filing a petition for divorce.

In support of her transfer petition, the wife argued that she was living with her aged parents in Mumbai and there was no one at her home to accompany her from Mumbai to Mangaluru, more than 1,000 km away, to contest the divorce petition. She also contended that she did not even know the Kannada language. Whereas, as per her, her husband would not face any problem in case the petition was transferred to Mumbai.

The petitioner-wife also urged that if she were given an opportunity, she would try to give the marriage an opportunity to work. She added that she was forced to take up a job with a bank as her husband had refused to support her financially.

The husband, on the other hand, argued that the wife was well aware of his family background and also the status of his family. Immediately after the marriage, her behaviour had changed from how it was prior to the marriage.

The husband also submitted that he resides with his aged parents. He alleged that his wife misbehaved with them, and wanted to live a luxurious life.

During the pendency of the petition, to explore the possibility of settling the matrimonial dispute, the matter was referred to the Supreme Court Mediation Centre, but the mediation failed.

Justice S.J. Vazifdar, former Chief Justice of Punjab and Haryana High Court, was appointed as a mediator. But the mediation report stated that despite spending a total of about 50 hours across different sessions, the parties and their family members could not arrive at a settlement, and the mediation failed.

Later, the parties agreed to take assistance from a marriage counsellor.

Advocate Shankar Divate appeared for the petitioner-wife while advocate Amit Pai appeared for the respondent-husband.

Click here to view the Supreme Court's full judgment in Delma Lubna Coelho versus Edmond Clint Fernandes.