Family Law Case: Krishna Serchan vs. Padam Kumari Serchan, NKP 2067 B.S., Vol.52, D.N: 8487
Case: Divorce (Relationship Dissolution)
Plaintiff/Appellant: Krishna Serchan
Defendant/Respondent: Padam kumari Serchan
Decision Number: 8487
This case is related to the dissolution of marriage on the ground of prolonged separation, continuous marital discord, and the legal effect of partition of property on the continuation of the marital relationship.
Facts of the Case:
Krishna Serchan and Padam Kumari Serchan were married in 2042 B.S. according to social customs. Their married life remained peaceful for only about two years, after which disputes began between them. The husband claimed that the wife left the matrimonial home without his consent and lived at her parental home for about 22 years. During this period, she filed complaints against him and his family and also obtained partition of property.
The husband later went to Japan for 11 years and, after returning, contracted a second marriage. Since all attempts at reconciliation failed, he filed a suit seeking divorce. The wife opposed the divorce, stating that she had committed no wrongdoing and wanted to continue the marital relationship.
Legal Issues:
- Whether a husband can obtain divorce when the wife has lived separately for many years without his consent.
- Whether long separation and lack of mutual understanding justify divorce.
- Whether partition of property and complete economic separation support dissolution of marriage.
- Whether the marital relationship should continue despite the absence of reconciliation.
Different Courts’ Decisions:
District Court:
Kathmandu District Court held that there were insufficient legal grounds for divorce. It found that the husband was not prevented from exercising his rights merely because the marriage continued and therefore dismissed the divorce claim.
Appellate Court:
Appellate Court, Patan, agreed with the District Court and upheld its decision, holding that the husband’s claim for divorce could not be allowed.
Supreme Court:
Supreme Court reversed the decisions of both lower courts. It held that the parties had lived separately for about 22 years, there was no mutual understanding or possibility of reconciliation, and the wife had already obtained partition and was living independently. Therefore, continuing the marriage served no purpose, and the Court granted the divorce.
Principle Established:
A marriage can continue only when there is mutual understanding and harmony between the spouses. Where the parties have lived separately for a long time, reconciliation is impossible, and the marital relationship has completely broken down, divorce is justified. Mere continuation of marriage for social identity, despite partition and complete economic separation, is not sufficient.
Relevancy of the Case:
This case is a leading precedent in Nepalese family law. It establishes that when spouses have lived separately for a long period, have no mutual understanding, and reconciliation is impossible, the court may grant divorce because continuing such a marriage has no legal or practical purpose.
