Jharkhand High Court
Sri Manish Ranjan vs Sweta Rani on 10 January, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
First Appeal No. 110 of 2019
Sri Manish Ranjan --- --- Appellant
Versus
Sweta Rani --- --- Respondent
With
First Appeal No. 117 of 2019
Sweta Rani --- --- Appellant
Versus
Manish Ranjan --- --- Respondent
---
CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Deepak Roshan
Through: Video Conferencing
---
For the Appellant: Mr. Rohit Agarwal, Advocate (FA 110/2019)
For the Respondent: Mr. Mukesh Kr. Dubey Advocate (FA 110/2019)
For the Appellant: Mr. Mukesh Kr. Dubey, Advocate (FA 117/2019)
For the Respondent: Mr. Rohit Agarwal, Advocate (FA 117/2019)
---
10 / 10.01.2022 Both parties are present through online mode. Wife is present with her
two minor sons who are studying in Std.-X & IX in a school at Jamshedpur.
During settlement, the parties had agreed to restart their conjugal life with
certain conditions. The pre-condition for resumption of conjugal life was that
both the sons would spent 15-20 days with their father at his place. Such inquiry
was left for the court to be made from the children. Before making such inquiry
from the children in order to understand the mental state and approach of both
the spouses, we had interactions with both of them. It was suggested that since
the children are living with the mother separately from the father for the last 12
years, ideally mother should accompany the children to spent some time at the
father's place and to facilitate a congenial atmosphere, close family members of
both the parties should also stay together for some time to break the ice amongst
the parties and the children with the father and also ward off any unpleasant
situation that may arise. It appears from the interaction with the parties that
husband is insistent upon stay of the children for 15-20 days with him as the
first step before the wife also joins, whereas the wife and the children are
agreeable to join the father together for such brief stay to ensure that conjugal
life resumes and lasts. However, in view of the insistence of the father when the
children have been asked, they have straightaway conveyed their views that
they would not be going alone without company of their mother to stay with
their father even for a week. As such, condition for resumption of their
matrimonial relationship hinges on such a delicate issue that on refusal of the
children to go alone with the father even for a brief period, resumption of
matrimonial life of the spouses is unlikely. Despite efforts made by this Court
to make the father in particular to see reason on this score, his insistence has
created a stage of deadlock.
2. Wounds in the matrimonial relationship take time to repair and the
parties have to give chance to each other. Often relationship hinges on such a
thin balance that immediate solution cannot be found out. The instant case
appears to be one such. In such situation, apart from the broken relationship of
the spouses, court is also concerned with the consequences that children of such
a broken marriage have to face. Human relationship can't be mended by the
court's order. Parties have to make conscious efforts where as mediator or the
court may only act as a facilitator. Having found no headway in the
reconciliatory efforts, we have no option but to proceed on the lines of
adjudication.
3. It is informed that husband is paying maintenance @ Rs. 17,000/- per
month to the wife in terms of the order passed in the maintenance case.
However, permanent alimony of Rs. 25.00 lakhs granted by the learned Family
Court by the impugned judgment, has not been paid till date.
4. Since both the appeals arise out of the common impugned judgment and
delay has been condoned in First Appeal No. 110/2019, delay of 216 days in
preferring First Appeal No. 117/2019 is condoned after hearing the learned
counsel for the parties. I.A. No. 9725/2019 preferred by the appellant for
condonation of delay is allowed.
5. Admit.
6. Call for the lower court records in connection with Original Suit No.
27/2017 from the court of learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Seraikella-
Kharsawan.
7. Let the appeals be listed under the heading 'for hearing' as per its age,
on receipt of the lower court records.
Presence of the parties and children is dispensed with.
(Aparesh Kumar Singh, J)
(Deepak Roshan, J)
Ranjeet/
