IRRETRIEVABLE BREAKDOWN OF MARRIAGE UNDER THE HINDU MARRIAGE ACT, 1955: A COMPARATIVE ASSESSMENT WITH CANADA AND THE UNITED STATES AND THE CASE FOR STATUTORY RECOGNITION WITH ALIMONY SAFEGUARDS

Indian divorce law asks an odd question of people whose marriages have quietly ended: who was at the fault? Under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, a spouse who wants divorce must either prove a matrimonial offence or secure the willing cooperation of a partner who may have every reason to withhold it. Irretrievable breakdown of marriage, meanwhile, has entered Indian law through the back door. The Supreme Court now dissolves “dead” marriages under Article 142 of the Constitution while the statute stays silent, and Parliament’s most serious attempt at reform lapsed in 2014. This research paper asks whether irretrievable breakdown can and should become a statutory ground for divorce under the Act, and on what conditions. Using a doctrinal method supported by comparative analysis of Canada and the United States (with particular reference to California and New York), drawing exclusively on secondary sources, it examines the statutory scheme, the Law Commission’s reports, the Marriage Laws (Amendment) Bills of 2010 and 2013, and the Supreme Court’s recent decisions. It argues that the ground is viable and overdue, but only if divorce and financial protection are legislated together: a decree should not become final until the court is satisfied about maintenance, residence and the welfare of children. Drawing lessons from Canadian one-year separation under the Divorce Act and United States’ no-fault models (California’s irreconcilable differences and New York’s irretrievable breakdown), the research paper shows that viable reform pairs an objective breakdown test with robust alimony and property safeguards. The research paper proposes a model with a three-year separation threshold, compulsory disclosure of assets, a two-stage decree, a hardship provision that works to secure arrangements instead of blocking dissolution, statutory guidance on matrimonial property, and stronger enforcement of alimony orders.