A division bench of Patna High Court, used “Doctrine of frustration” in addition to Cruelty to dissolve a marriage registered under the Special Marriage Act, 1954.
From Paras 39,
39. But, at same time, we are also mindful of the legal position that we cannot exercise power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India for complete justice.
40. At this juncture, our judicial consciousness poses a question to us: being a constitutional court “are we helpless?”. This is particularly so, when we are convinced that respondent/applicant cannot perform her marital obligation with appellant due to the aforesaid compelling circumstances.
41. Hence, this is an occasion to view the present episode in a more progressive manner by importing the “Doctrine of frustration”.
42. As a Constitutional Court it is of paramount importance to touch upon all the possible scenarios, which can result in delivery of justice. Solemnization of marriage is a pious concept which does not only involve a husband and wife but society at large. And keeping in view the best interest of the parties, best possible way to deliver justice should be adopted. The court highlights that “Justice should not only be done, but must also be seen to be done”. Going with the essence of above mentioned phrase, the court will fail in its duty, if it will not discuss the prospective probabilities which can ensure the just, reasonable and conscious delivery of justice.
43. The Indian Jurisprudence suggests that “Procedural law is the handmaid of Justice and not its mistress”, which enables the court to adopt flexible approach rather than taking a rigid view of the prescribed law.
44. At the outset, it is not in dispute that the marriage between the parties was solemnized in accordance with law under the Special Marriage Act, 1954 and continued for a certain period, thereby creating a legally valid and subsisting matrimonial bond. The statutory presumption attached to such marriage stands fortified by the mandate of Section 13(2) of the Act, which accords conclusiveness to the certificate of marriage.
45. It must be acknowledged that though marriage is not a commercial contract, it undeniably embodies a bundle of reciprocal obligations—cohabitation, fidelity, companionship, emotional support, and exclusivity. Where these foundational obligations stand extinguished not by mere estrangement but by subsequent conduct that legally and morally negates the marital bond, the continuance of marriage becomes impossible in substance. In such circumstances, the Court cannot remain bound by the mere form of the relationship when its essence has ceased to exist.
From Para 46,
46. …. The doctrine of frustration, embodied in Section 56 of the Indian Contract Act, is founded on the principle that law does not compel performance of that which has become impossible. When applied in the matrimonial context, particularly to civil marriages under the Special Marriage Act, this principle manifests in situations where the foundation of marriage— cohabitation, consortium, mutual obligations—stands irretrievably destroyed.
47. The doctrine of frustration, as evolved in contract law, operates where an unforeseen event renders the performance of obligations impossible or destroys the very foundation upon which the relationship rests. Transposed into matrimonial jurisprudence, the doctrine applies where the substratum of marriage—mutual trust, exclusivity, and consortium—is irreversibly destroyed, leaving no scope for restoration. The law, in such a situation, must recognize reality over fiction.
48. The present case transcends the conventional doctrine of irretrievable breakdown of marriage. Irretrievable breakdown of marriage contemplates a situation where the marriage has failed due to prolonged separation, incompatibility, or absence of cohabitation. It is not merely a case where the
marriage has failed due to incompatibility or prolonged separation; rather, it is one where subsequent events—most notably the lawful remarriage of the respondent-wife and the birth of a child—have rendered the performance of marital obligations wholly impossible. The doctrine of frustration, as invoked herein, goes a step further—it applies where the very performance of marital obligations has become impossible due to supervening circumstances. The impossibility herein operates at multiple levels—moral, practical, and legal—thereby justifying the application of a doctrine analogous to frustration in order to recognize reality over legal fiction.
From Para 54,
54. While it is true that the doctrine of frustration, in its strict contractual sense, is not directly applicable to matrimonial law, the underlying principle—that a relationship rendered incapable of performance by supervening circumstances ought not to be artificially preserved—can be judiciously invoked. Constitutional courts are empowered to adopt Purposive Interpretation to advance justice and to put an end to litigation. The Rule of interpretation suggests that Constitutional Courts must be at work to fulfill the legislative intent. Marriage, though not a commercial contract, embodies reciprocal and enforceable obligations such as cohabitation, fidelity, companionship, and exclusivity. Where these essential obligations stand extinguished, not merely by estrangement but by subsequent conduct that negates the very foundation of the marriage, the continuance of such a bond becomes impossible in substance.
From Para 57,
57. In view of the above, this Court is of the considered opinion that the present case represents a rare but compelling situation where the doctrine of frustration must be invoked in matrimonial law.
58. The marriage, though validly solemnized, has lost its essential character due to subsequent events that render its continuation impossible. The legal bond survives only as a shell, devoid of substance, purpose, or enforceability. To compel parties to remain in such a relationship would amount to enforcing a legal fiction at the cost of justice. The law cannot insist upon the preservation of a bond that has ceased to exist in every meaningful sense.
59. Therefore, in order to do complete justice, to uphold the dignity of the parties, to secure the welfare of the child, and to serve the broader interests of society, this Court finds it appropriate to dissolve the marriage by applying the doctrine of frustration, treating the matrimonial bond as having become incapable of performance.
60. Accordingly, marriage of OP/appellant namely, Manoj Kumar @ Munna stands dissolved with respondent/applicant namely, Nita Bharti.
From Para 74 (Concurring Opinion)
74. Thus, “Doctrine of frustration” which has been introduced by my esteemed brother as a ground of divorce is supplemented by me holding inter alia that continuous uninterrupted, prolonged separation by and between the parties had caused deep frustration in the core of their heart, such frustration caused by the other spouse is a form of cruelty within the meaning of Section 27 (1) (d) of Special Marriage Act.
Citations:
Other Sources:
Index of Divorce Judgments is here.
