Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dr. Gopesh Kumar Modi vs Dr. Ms. Jyoti Nath Modi on 8 February, 2024
Author: Chief Justice
Bench: Ravi Malimath, Vishal Mishra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH,
CHIEF JUSTICE
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA
FIRST APPEAL No. 852 of 2016
BETWEEN:-
DR. GOPESH KUMAR MODI S/O LATE SHRI K.K.
MODI, R/O B-2/88 C-SECTOR SHAHPURA BHOPAL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(BY SHRI VISHAL BHATNAGAR - ADVOCATE)
AND
DR. MS. JYOTI NATH MODI W/O SHRI GOPESH
KUMAR MODI , R/O HIG B-14 PEOPLES COLLAGE
OIF MEDICAL SCIENCES BHANPURA, BHOPAL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI NAVEEN VASWANI - ADVOCATE)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reserved on : 18.12.2023
Pronounced on : 08.02.2024
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This appeal having been heard and reserved for judgment, coming
on for pronouncement this day, Hon'ble Shri Justice Vishal Mishra
passed the following:
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUSHEEL
KUMAR JHARIYA
Signing time: 2/9/2024
11:48:36 AM
2
JUDGMENT
This first appeal under Section 28(4) of the Hindu Marriage Act,
1955 read with Section 19 of the Family Courts Act has been filed
challenging the judgment and decree dated 20.07.2016 passed by the
First Additional District Judge, Family Court, Bhopal in Civil Cases
No.10-A/2011 and 739-A of 2011, whereby, an application filed by the
husband under Section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act has been
dismissed and the application filed by the respondent/wife under Section
9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of the conjugal rights has been
allowed.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant as well as the respondent
are husband and wife. Their marriage was solemnized as per Hindu rites
and rituals on 04.02.1995 at Haridwar, Uttrakhand. It was an inter-caste
marriage. Out of the said wedlock, a girl child was born on 21.09.2000
who is residing with the respondent/wife till date. The appellant as well
as the respondent are doctors by profession. The appellant is a senior
Nephrologist and the respondent is a Gynecologist. Both are living at
Bhopal for last ten years. The appellant joined BMHRC as H.O.D.
Department of Nephrology and worked therein till February, 2009.
Thereafter, in March 2009, he joined at Samarpan Hospital, Shahpura,
Bhopal. Recently, he has been shifted to Noble Samarpan Kidney Centre,
Misrod Bhopal as Head of the Department of Nephrology. The
respondent was earlier working in the Gandhi Medical College Bhopal
and in the year 2006 she joined at Peoples College of Medical Science
Bhopal in the department of Obs/Gynecology as Associate Professor.
Presently, she is working as a Professor. Owing to some dispute between
the husband and the wife, the appellant/husband filed an application
under Section 13 (1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking divorce on
the ground that after marriage, the respondent treated him and his parents
with cruelty. She has caused serious mental cruelty as well as mental
harassment upon the appellant owing to which they are living separately
for more than seven years and there is irretrievable breakdown of the
marriage.
3. On notice being issued, the respondent/wife appeared in the matter
and filed the written statement. The respondent/wife has filed an
application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of
conjugal rights. The appellant as well as the respondents both have
examined three witnesses. Several documents were filed by the
appellant/husband in support of his case seeking divorce on the ground of
cruelty. The learned Family Court by analogous hearing had decided both
the matters. The learned Family Court considering the contentions and
the evidence available on record, has arrived at a conclusion that the
husband has failed to prove his case beyond any reasonable doubt. The
factum of cruelty could not be proved by him. On the contrary, learned
Family Court has allowed the application filed by the respondent/wife
seeking restitution of conjugal rights and accordingly vide judgment
dated 20.07.2016 has decided both the cases and the decree was drawn
accordingly. Being aggrieved by the same, the present appeal has been
preferred by the husband.
4. This appeal has been preferred on the ground that the learned Family
Court has failed to consider the settled legal proposition of law. The
ground of professional rivalry which was incorporated by the appellant by
amending the application, was not found proved by the learned Family
Court holding it to be an afterthought and incorporated after taking legal
advice. Another ground of illegitimate relations of the appellant with
other women as alleged by the wife was subsequently taken after
amending his earlier application. They were turned down by the trial
court holding it to be an afterthought. It is argued that the fact that the
respondent has compelled the appellant to stay at Bhopal and applied for
BMHRC at Bhopal, was not properly appreciated by the learned trial
court. The appellant and the respondent were not in the same branch of
the medical field. Therefore, they cannot be equated. It was due to the
adamant and stubborn behavior of the respondent, the appellant could not
elevate his career even after having the excellent qualification in the
medical science. In the year 2000, the appellant was in the USA working
and studying therein. There was no reason/occasion for him to apply or
come to Haridwar. There was no other member in his family who has any
acquaintance in Bhopal. On the contrary, the respondent's entire family
and friends were residing at Bhopal. Therefore, she compelled the
appellant to stay at Bhopal.
5. It is contended that the learned Family Court while rejecting the
claim of the appellant regarding cruelty being caused by the wife, has
allowed the application filed by the wife under Section 9 of the Hindu
Marriage Act without there being any cogent evidence available on
record. The entire burden was upon the wife to prove that the appellant
has left the company without any reason and without any fault of her. It is
pointed out that the notice dated 19.06.2022 issued in terms of Section 9
of the Hindu Marriage Act, was not taken on record by the trial court and
the application filed by the respondent seeking additional documents to
be taken on record was rejected. The same was never challenged by the
respondent and has attained finality. Under these circumstances, the
learned Family Court ought not to have allowed the application under
Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The application under Section 9 of
the Hindu Marriage Act is a counter blast to the application filed by the
appellant under Section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act. In case any
cause of action had arisen to the wife, the proceedings under Section 9 of
the Hindu Marriage Act should have been initiated on an earlier date. It is
surprising that the wife has waited for filing and issuance of a notice of
the application under Section 13 (1) of the Hindu Marriage Act. It is
pointed out that at the time of filing of the application under Section
13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, it was mentioned that the appellant as
well as the respondent were living separately for last seven years. No
efforts were made by her to bring him back either orally or in writing.
She was not in contact with any of the family members or the appellant
neither any effort was made by her to repair the matrimonial bond. It is
pointed out that a girl child born out of the wedlock is residing with the
wife.
6. Pointing out various documents which have been filed before the
Family Court, he has made an attempt to establish that even if the aspect
of cruelty has not been proved by the Family Court, then the fact that they
are living separately for seven years (now almost 14 years) and there is
no possibility of reunion of the marital relationship, the marriage should
have been dissolved declaring it to be an irretrievable breakdown of
marriage. They have not lived together for several years though they are
residing at Bhopal working in different fields in different hospitals. Even
the girl child which was born on 21.09.2000 is living with the
respondent/wife till date. Despite obtaining a decree of Section 9 of the
Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights vide judgment dated
20.07.2016, no effort has been made by the wife to get the decree
executed before the competent court of jurisdiction. Virtually there is no
communication between the husband and the wife. The respondent has
not filed any application seeking maintenance for herself or for the
daughter.
7. Counsel appearing for the appellant has further drawn attention of
this Court to the relevant paragraphs of the impugned judgment wherein
the learned Family Court has considered the evidence and placed reliance
upon it. It is argued that the factum of professional rivalry although
subsequently added by way of amendment, but from the cross-
examination of the respondent, she has admitted the fact that the appellant
done fellowship in the USA for two years and the period was extended
for three years. Therefore, he was having broad chances to rise in the
medical profession, but he was forced to leave the USA and to come back
to Bhopal. Even the passport was retained by the wife and despite the
request, the same was not handed over to the husband. He has filed an
application seeking a direction from the court to hand over the passport.
The fact that parents of the appellant were ill-treated is also clarified from
the statement. The father of the appellant passed away in the year 2012
due to ill-treatment and being harassed by the wife. The husband under
the compelling circumstances was living separately from the wife. He
was forced to file an application under Section 13(1) of the Hindu
Marriage Act, 1955 seeking divorce on the ground of cruelty. Apart from
the contention regarding cruelty, another ground which has been taken in
the appeal is that presently they are living separately for almost 14 years.
There is no possibility of re-union. They are not even in talking terms.
Attempts were made by this Court to get the matter settled through
mediation. Initially in the year 2018, the mediation proceedings were
unsuccessful as despite reminders none of the parties appeared in the
mediation proceedings. Again vide order dated 10.08.2023, an attempt
was made to get the issue resolved through mediation, but the report
indicates that the mediation is not possible and the matter remained
unsettled. Presently, they are residing separately since 2009, therefore,
virtually there is irretrievable breakdown of marriage and on this ground
alone, the divorce should have been granted. He has placed reliance upon
the judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as the
Division Bench of various High Courts to substantiate his arguments;
namely Rishikesh Sharma vs. Saroj Sharma, (2007) 2 SCC 263; Samar
Ghosh vs. Jaya Ghosh (2007) 4 SCC 511, N. Rajendran vs. S. Valli
(2022) SCC OnLine SC 157; R. Srinivas Kumar vs. R. Shametha (2019)
SCC 409; Siddalingamma and another vs. Mamtha Shenoy (2001) 8 SCC
561, Vinita Saxena vs. Pankaj Pandit (2006) 3 SCC 778; Vidya
Vishwanathan vs. Kartik Balakrishnan (2014) 15 SCC 21; Joydeep
Majumdar vs. Bharti Jaiswal Majumdar (2021) 3 SCC 742; Vandana
Singh vs. Satish Kumar (2022) SCC OnLine Del 1 and Beena M.S. vs.
Shino G. Babu (2022) SCC OnLine Ker 778.
8. Per contra, counsel appearing for the respondent/wife has
vehemently opposed the contentions and supported the impugned
judgment passed by the learned Family Court. It is submitted that the fact
of cruelty raised by the husband in his application under Section 13(1) of
the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 was not found proved by the learned
Family Court. Heavy burden lies upon the appellant to prove the same,
but looking to the evidence available on record, the learned Family Court
has arrived at a conclusion that factum of cruelty is not made out in the
matter. There may be some small issues between the husband and wife,
but the same does not amount to cruelty. As far as the future prospects in
medical profession of the husband which was subsequently added by way
amendment in the application is concerned, the learned Family Court has
found the same to be an afterthought. All possible attempts were made by
her to live with the husband, even an application under Section 9 of the
Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights was filed by her.
The learned Family Court has arrived at a conclusion that it was the
husband who was living separately from the wife without any reason and
has allowed the application. No efforts were made by the husband to
comply with the decree despite the repeated requests. The daughter is
living with the wife and at no point of time; the husband has taken any
care or bothered about his daughter. No expenses towards her education
etc. were borne by the husband. It was the respondent/wife who has taken
all possible efforts for upbringing of her daughter. Under these
circumstances, learned Family Court has rightly arrived at a conclusion
and rejected the claim of the husband seeking divorce on the ground of
cruelty and on the contrary, has allowed the application under Section 9
of the Hindu Marriage Act filed by the wife. As far as irretrievable
breakdown of marriage is concerned, he has placed reliance upon a
judgment of three Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case
of Mangayakarasi vs. M. Yuvaraj AIR 2020 SC 1198 wherein it was held
that the marriage cannot be dissolved on the ground of long period of
continuous separation where it involves normal wear and tear of marital
life, future of the child and more particularly when a petition for
restitution of conjugal rights are also filed simultaneously. He has prayed
for dismissal of the appeal.
9. Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the record.
10. Initially a divorce petition under Section 13(1) of the Hindu
Marriage Act, 1955 was filed on the ground of cruelty. Several
allegations are made by the husband against the behavior of the wife with
him as well as his parents. The ground of professional rivalry was
subsequently taken by way of amendment, which was turned down. In the
present case, both the husband and the wife are doctors by profession.
Their marriage was solemnized in the year 1995 according to the Hindu
rites and rituals and out of the wedlock, a girl child was born in the year
2000. The husband/appellant is a senior Nephrologist and the
respondent/wife is a Gynecologist. Presently both of them are working at
Bhopal in different hospitals. It is not disputed that the husband has gone
to the USA for fellowship initially for two years which was subsequently
extended for three years. He came back to Bhopal and joined Samarpan
Hospital Shahpura, Bhopal and since then he is working at Bhopal. The
record indicates that the father of the appellant/husband was suffering
from Cancer since 2005 and he passed away in the year 2012 owing to
the same disease. During this period, the appellant/husband went to his
home town. They were brought to Bhopal and stayed with the appellant
as well as the respondent/wife. Learned Family Court after analyzing all
the aspects of the matter has arrived at a conclusion that the factum of
cruelty as alleged as well as the factum of professional rivalry being an
afterthought could not be meted out. Learned Family Court on the
contrary has found that the wife was always willing to live with the
husband and does not want to breakdown the marriage. The grounds
which have been raised in the application under Section 9 of the Hindu
Marriage Act by the wife were taken note by the learned Family Court
and the application was allowed.
11. It is not disputed that both the husband and the wife are living
separately since 2009. The girl child is living with the wife. No
maintenance is being claimed by the wife at any point of time. Neither the
husband has made any efforts to make any expenses towards upbringing
of his child and her education. There is nothing on record to show the
same. The facts and the evidence available on record indicate that both
are living separately since 2009 and the wife has taken responsibility of
the girl child including financial burden. The record further indicates that
both the husband and the wife are not on even any talking terms. The
child born out of the wedlock in the year 2000 must be more than 23
years of age. The husband and the wife today are aged about 53 and 51
respectively as pointed out by their counsels. Both are working separately
in different institutions at Bhopal. Whether it will be feasible for them to
continue their marriage, once they are not even on talking terms for
atleast 15 years and are fighting in the courts?
12. A Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Shilpa Sailesh vs. Varun Sreenivasan reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC
544 had an occasion to consider the aspect of irretrievable breakdown of
marriage and held that the facts are to be taken note of while granting
decree of divorce on this ground. The same reads as under:
"33. Having said so, we wish to clearly state that grant of
divorce on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage
by this Court is not a matter of right, but a discretion which is
to be exercised with great care and caution, keeping in mind
several factors ensuring that 'complete justice' is done to
both parties. It is obvious that this Court should be fully
convinced and satisfied that the marriage is totally
unworkable, emotionally dead and beyond salvation and,
therefore, dissolution of marriage is the right solution and the
only way forward. That the marriage has irretrievably broken
down is to be factually determined and firmly established.
For this, several factors are to be considered such as the
period of time the parties had cohabited after marriage; when
the parties had last cohabited; the nature of allegations made
by the parties against each other and their family members;
the orders passed in the legal proceedings from time to time,
cumulative impact on the personal relationship; whether, and
how many attempts were made to settle the disputes by
intervention of the court or through mediation, and when the
last attempt was made, etc. The period of separation should
be sufficiently long, and anything above six years or more
will be a relevant factor. But these facts have to be evaluated
keeping in view the economic and social status of the parties,
including their educational qualifications, whether the parties
have any children, their age, educational qualification, and
whether the other spouse and children are dependent, in
which event how and in what manner the party seeking
divorce intends to take care and provide for the spouse or the
children. Question of custody and welfare of minor children,
provision for fair and adequate alimony for the wife, and
economic rights of the children and other pending matters, if
any, are relevant considerations. We would not like to codify
the factors so as to curtail exercise of jurisdiction under
Article 142(1) of the Constitution of India, which is situation
specific.
42. (iii) Whether this Court can grant divorce in exercise of
power under Article 142(1) of the Constitution of India when
there is complete and irretrievable breakdown of marriage in
spite of the other spouses opposing the prayer?
This question is also answered in the affirmative, inter alia,
holding that this Court, in exercise of power under Article
142(1) of the Constitution of India, has the discretion to
dissolve the marriage on the ground of its irretrievable
breakdown. This discretionary power is to be exercised to do
'complete justice' to the parties, wherein this Court is
satisfied that the facts established show that the marriage has
completely failed and there is no possibility that the parties
will cohabit together, and continuation of the formal legal
relationship is unjustified. The Court, as a court of equity, is
required to also balance the circumstances and the
background in which the party opposing the dissolution is
placed."
13. A Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi in the case of Deepti
vs. Anil Kumar, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 5829 considering the judgment
passed by the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Shilpa Sailesh (supra) has held that the power to grant divorce on
the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage can be exercised by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court under Article 142 of the Constitution of India
to do complete justice to both the parties. Such a power is not vested in
the High Courts leave alone the Family Courts.
14. Thus, from the aforesaid analysis, it is apparent that every care and
caution should be taken while dealing with the matter pertaining to grant
of decree of divorce based upon the irretrievable breakdown of marriage.
Such powers cannot be exercised by the High Courts. The same is vested
with the Hon'ble Supreme Court in terms of Article 142 of the
Constitution of India and the same can be exercised to do the complete
justice in the matter to both the parties. Therefore, the judgments relied
upon by the learned counsel with respect to grant of a decree on the
ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage, are of no help to the
appellant, as this Court has no power to grant such a decree.
15. However, in the present facts and circumstances of the case, as
both the parties are residing separately now since almost for 15 years and
the effort made by this Court to resolve the controversy by way of
mediation has failed twice; once in the year 2018 wherein the mediation
report submitted as under:
^^vihykFkhZ Mk0 Jh xksi's k dqekj eksnh vuqifLFkr muds vf/koDrk Jh foods
cMsfj;k mifLFkrA
izR;FkhZ Mk0 Jherh T;ksfr ukFk eksnh ,oe~ muds vf/koDrk Jh vkj-ih- feJk
vuqifLFkrA
mDr izdj.k fnukad 13-08-2018] 24-09-2019] 06-10-2018 ,oe~ vkt fnukad
26-10-2018 dks e/;LFkrk gsrq fu;r Fkk fdUrq mDr lHkh frfFk;ksa esa i{kdkjksa
dks Qksu }kjk ckj ckj lwfpr djus ij Hkh i{kdkj e/;LFkrk dh dk;Zokgh esa
mifLFkr ugh gks ldsA
izdj.k vfxze dk;Zokgh gsrq ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; dks lknj izsf"kr fd;k
tkrk gSA**
Again vide order 10.08.2023, the matter was sent for mediation and
the report dated 11.10.2023 which has been submitted by the Family
Court, Bhopal reads as under:
^^mijksDr lanfHkZr izdj.k esa mHk;i{k ds e/; e/;LFkrk dh dk;Zokgh
fnukad&14-08-2023] 18-08-2023] 21-08-2023] 02-09-2023] 11-10-2023 dks
fu"ikfnr dh x;hA mHk;i{k ls i`Fkd i`Fkd ,oa la;qDr :i ls ppkZ dh x;hA
mHk;i{kksa ds e/; ehfM;s'ku dh dk;Zokgh dh x;hA i{kdkjksa ds e/; vlgefr
Lo:i ekeyk uksV&lsVYM jgkA
rnuqlkj ehfM,'ku dk;Zokgh vlQy jghA
mijksDr lwpuk vkidh vksj izsf"kr gSA**
16. The marital relationship which has become more bitter and
acrimonious over the years, does nothing but inflicts cruelty on both the
sides. To keep the facade of the broken marriage alive would be doing
injustice to both the parties. A marriage which has broken down
irretrievably, in our opinion, spells cruelty to both the parties as in such a
relationship each party is treating the other with cruelty. Therefore, the
ground of dissolution of marriage under Section 13(1)(i)(a) of the Act of
1955 is available to the appellant.
17. Cruelty has not been defined under the Act of 1955. The context
where it has been used which is a ground for dissolution of a marriage
would show that it has to be seen as a human conduct and behavior in
matrimonial relationship. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with
the case of Samar Ghosh (supra) opined that the cruelty can be physical
as well as mental. The same reads as under:
"46......The cruelty may be mental or physical, intentional or
unintentional. If it is physical, it is a question of fact and
degree. If it is mental, the enquiry must begin as to the nature
of the cruel treatment and then as to the impact of such
treatment on the mind of the spouse. Whether it caused
reasonable apprehension that it would be harmful or
injurious to live with the other, ultimately, is a matter of
inference to be drawn by taking into account the nature of the
conduct and its effect on the complaining spouse. There may,
however, be cases where the conduct complained of itself is
bad enough and per se unlawful or illegal. Then the impact or
the injurious effect on the other spouse need not be enquired
into or considered. In such cases, the cruelty will be
established if the conduct itself is proved or admitted. The
absence of intention should not make any difference in the
case, if by ordinary sense in human affairs, the act
complained of could otherwise be regarded as cruelty.
Intention is not a necessary element in cruelty. The relief to
the party cannot be denied on the ground that there has been
no deliberate or wilful ill-treatment.
101(xiv) Where there has been a long period of continuous
separation, it may fairly be concluded that the matrimonial
bond is beyond repair. The marriage becomes a fiction
though supported by a legal tie. By refusing to sever that tie,
the law in such cases, does not serve the sanctity of marriage;
on the contrary, it shows scant regard for the feelings and
emotions of the parties. In such like situations, it may lead to
mental cruelty."
18. In the present case, the marriage between the parties was
solemnized on 04.02.1995. A girl child was born out of the wedlock.
Since 2009 both the husband and the wife are living separately in the
same city working in different hospitals in different fields. The child
born out of the wedlock is residing with the mother since 2009. Both are
doctors by profession. The wife has not raised any demand claiming
maintenance for herself or for the child and on her own has borne the
expenses for her upbringing. No efforts were made by either of the parties
for reunion of the marriage. Though an application under Section 9 of the
Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights was filed by the
wife, but the fact remains that the same was done after an application
seeking divorce was filed by the husband. Appellant's passport was
retained by the wife/respondent, was not given despite request, he has to
file an application before the Family Court to get his passport. Even after
getting a decree in her favour as the Family Court has allowed the
application under Section 9 of the Act for restitution of conjugal rights in
the year 2016, no efforts were made by the wife to get the judgment and
decree executed. Virtually no correspondence is brought on record by
either of the parties to show that any efforts were made by them. Even the
girl child has suffered as she could not get love and affection of her father
since long. Long separation and absence of cohabitation and the complete
breakdown of all meaningful bonds and the existing bitterness between
the two, has to be understood and read as a 'cruelty' under Section
13(1)(i)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. In the present case,
admittedly, there is long separation of about 15 years. There is absence of
cohabitation and continuous litigations between the parties and, therefore,
the continuance of such a marriage was only being giving sanction to
cruelty, which each is inflicting on the other. Thus the same falls under
the category of 'mental cruelty' being caused to either party. Although
the factum of 'cruelty' was not found proved by the learned Family
Court, but the fact remains that the factum of 'mental cruelty' is available
in the case. Both the husband and the wife have been living separately
since 2009 in the same city and are continuously litigating for almost 15
years. Therefore, granting sanction to such a relationship which has
already been broken down with the passage of time, no fruitful purpose
will be served to keep the marital relationship alive.
19. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion
that a decree of divorce can be granted on the ground of mental cruelty.
Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The judgment and decree dated
20.07.2016 passed by the Family Court in Civil Case No.10-A/2011 and
739-A of 2011 is hereby set aside. The marriage solemnized between the
parties on 04.02.1995 is hereby dissolved on the ground of mental
cruelty.
20. As far as grant of alimony to the wife and the child is concerned,
the wife being a professional has never made any attempt to get
maintenance from the husband. She is a working woman and not
dependent upon the income of the husband and, therefore, she will not be
entitled for any alimony in the matter. As far as the child is concerned,
the father was duty bound to take care of his child which in the present
case he has not done. He was duty bound for upbringing of the child, to
make expenses for her future career and marriage of the girl child, but the
record indicates that not a single penny is being spent by the father
towards upbringing of the girl child since 2009. Considering the fact that
the husband is a well established doctor and working at Bhopal having a
sound financial condition, which is not disputed by the counsel for the
appellant, this court is of the considered opinion that certain amount
should be granted for the benefit of the child (although she has attained
majority as on date). Therefore, this court direct for grant of a lumpsum
amount of Rs.20.00 Lakhs in the form of fixed deposit of a Nationalized
Bank in the name of his daughter. FDR be prepared and handed over to
the daughter who is major now within a period of 60 days from the date
of pronouncement of this judgment.
21. With the aforesaid observations, this first appeal is allowed. Parties
to bear their own costs.
22. The Registry to draw a decree accordingly.
(RAVI MALIMATH) (VISHAL MISHRA)
CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE
SJ
