Sushma vs Sunil Kumar
2022 Latest Caselaw 2082 P&H

                                                                        1

FAO-M-139 of 2014




       IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                    AT CHANDIGARH


                                   FAO-M-139 of 2014
                                   Reserved on : 14.03.2022
                                   Date of pronouncement: 25.03.2022


Sushma
                                                            ......Appellant


              Versus



Sunil Kumar
                                                            .....Respondent


CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR VERMA

Argued by: - Mr. Raghubir Tejpal, Advocate,
             for the appellant-wife.

              Mr. Suneel Ranga, Advocate,
              for the respondent-husband.

ASHOK KUMAR VERMA, J.

[1] The appellant-wife has come up in appeal before this Court

seeking setting aside of judgment and decree dated 05.02.2014 passed by

the Additional District Judge, Panipat, whereby petition filed by the

respondent-husband under Section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

(for short 'the HMA') for a decree of divorce by way of dissolution of

marriage, has been allowed.

[2] Brief facts of the case are that respondent-husband filed a

petition under Section 13(1) of the HMA for a decree of divorce by way

of dissolution of marriage pleading therein that marriage between the

1 of 19

FAO-M-139 of 2014

parties was solemnized according to Hindu rites and ceremonies on

09.07.2005 at Vishanu Nagar, Gohana, District Sonepat, in a simple

manner. No dowry was given or taken. The marriage was registered with

the Registrar of Marriage at Gohana. The marriage was duly

consummated and a male child namely, Gatik was born out of their

wedlock. After marriage, parties resided in their home at NFL Township,

Panipat. On the first night of the marriage when respondent tried to have

sexual relationship with the appellant, he could not penetrate properly.

On the next day, he consulted an expert doctor and got himself operated in

Prabhakar Hospital and was advised bed rest for 15 days. As a result of

which he could not make physical or sexual contact with the appellant for

a period of about 20-25 days after the marriage. Thereafter, when

respondent tried to have physical relationship with the appellant, she told

him that she had conceived admitting that she had committed a wrong

prior to the marriage as she was having a love affair with a boy prior to

her marriage. Respondent suffered great mental pain, agony and went

into depression. Appellant concealed the fact of her pregnancy prior to

her marriage. Appellant was got medically examined at Hyderabadi

Hospital and the fact of her pregnancy was confirmed. Thereafter, mother

of the appellant took the appellant along with her to abort her pregnancy

but left the appellant at her matrimonial home on 22.08.2005 without

getting the pregnancy terminated. Appellant was again called at

Hyderabadi Hospital for check up and further treatment on 27.08.2005.

On the said date, Dr. Bharti Dhawan of Hyderabadi Hospital conducted

ultrasound of the appellant and confirmed her pregnancy. Thereafter,

2 of 19

FAO-M-139 of 2014

pregnancy of the appellant was got terminated on 30.08.2005 and she

continued receiving treatment from Dr. Bharti Dhawan after termination

of her pregnancy. However, appellant did not mend her behavior and left

respondent's company on 26.10.2005 leaving a written note mentioning

that she was going to commit suicide for which she herself was

responsible. Respondent contacted the appellant and asked her to come

back. However, appellant asked the respondent to come to her parental

home. In the last week of October, 2005, respondent went to the house of

appellant to bring her back. Appellant asked him to gift a gold ring to her

sister Sonia. After coming to his house, appellant again started mis-

behaving with him and his parents. She even tried to manhandle her

mother-in-law and threw a shoe upon her father-in-law. Respondent

requested the appellant to mend her behaviour but she did not listen to

him. Rather she raised a demand to live separately from her in-laws. He

being the only son of his parents did not accede to her demand. When all

efforts of the respondent to settle the matter failed, he started living

separately from his parents at Village Barauli along with the appellant to

run his married life smoothly. They resided at Village Barauli for about

3-4 months. She again started misbehaving with the respondent and

refused to cook meals for him. Thereafter, both of them started residing

at Yamuna Nagar. Appellant got admission in Sant Nischal Singh

Education College to get JBT degree. Respondent joined a private job in

Thopson Systems Pvt. Limited, Karnal. However, behaviour of the

appellant did not change. Once she attacked the respondent with a knife

and gave a blow of knife on his left wrist. Respondent was debarred from

3 of 19

FAO-M-139 of 2014

inheriting their immovable or movable properties by his parents through

publication in Dainik Jagran dated 04.07.2006. In the month of August,

2007 appellant left the respondent's company without any sufficient

reason and took away all the gold and silver jewellery and other valuable

household articles and clothes. Respondent contacted the appellant and

her family but they did not give any satisfactory reply. Appellant was

pregnant at that time. Respondent asked the appellant to come to her

matrimonial home for delivery but she refused. Respondent visited the

parental house of the appellant a number of times with a request to join

his company but in vain. Appellant gave birth to a male child, namely,

Gatik on 21.10.2007. All the expenses on the delivery of the child were

borne by the respondent. After the delivery of the child, respondent along

with his relatives again tried to bring back the appellant. They convened a

number of panchayats but the matter could not be settled. Appellant is

working as a teacher in a school at Village Sikandarpur Majra, District

Sonepat and drawing a salary of more than Rs.22,000/- per month,

whereas respondent is unemployed. Thus, appellant considers herself to

be superior to respondent and has flatly refused to join his company.

They have been living separately since August, 2007.

[3] Appellant-wife contested the petition on the ground that

petition was not maintainable. Respondent is himself estopped by his

own act and conduct from filing the petition for grant of divorce. The

petition was filed on false and vexatious grounds. Appellant-wife pleaded

that sufficient dowry articles including jewellery, clothes, furniture and

valuable gifts were given by her parents. However, respondent-husband

4 of 19

FAO-M-139 of 2014

and his family members were not satisfied with the dowry brought by her.

They used to taunt and tease her. She used to be beaten and tortured

mentally and physically. The marriage was duly consummated on the

very first night of the marriage. She gave birth to a male child on

20.10.2007 at her parental home. All the expenses on the treatment and

delivery were borne by her parents. Respondent did not care for her and

the child. A false and concocted story of alleged cruelty and desertion has

been narrated by the respondent-husband. Appellant denied that

respondent was suffering from any kind of sexual disease. She further

denied that the respondent could not make physical contact with her for a

period of 20-25 days of the marriage. False allegations regarding her

character have been made by the respondent. She had no love affair with

any boy prior to her marriage. She was also not pregnant at the time of

marriage. A false report was obtained by the respondent from the doctor.

Appellant denied that she herself left her matrimonial home. Rather she

was turned out of her matrimonial home on 21.10.2005 after giving her

severe beatings. It was denied that she demanded a gold ring for her sister

or that she ever threw a shoe upon her father-in-law. Averment made by

the respondent to the effect that he is the only son of his parents is

incorrect as he has a brother and a sister. Both his brother and sister,

namely, Pankaj and Neelam have been living abroad. Brother of the

respondent is also a divorcee. All the expenses on her education and stay

at Yamuna Nagar were borne by appellant's parents. Respondent himself

left her at her parental home. She denied that any panchayat was got

convened by the respondent. She also denied that she refused to live with

5 of 19

FAO-M-139 of 2014

the respondent. Appellant also denied that respondent was unemployed.

Respondent holds a masters degree in Tourism and Hotel Management.

He has not cared to pay any money towards maintenance of his minor

child. False and baseless allegations with regard to alleged cruelty have

been made by the respondent. She thus sought dismissal of the petition.

[4] From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were

framed by the Family Court on 26.03.2012: -

"1. Whether the petitioner-husband (Sunil Kumar) is entitled to claim decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty as pleaded by him in the petition? OPP.

2. Whether petition is not maintainable in the present form and petitioner-husband is not entitled to claim decree as prayed for on the grounds as mentioned in the written statement? OPR

3. Relief.

[5] However, issue No.1 was amended vide order dated

27.01.2014 as under: -

"Whether the petitioner-husband (Sunil Kumar) is entitled to claim decree of divorce on the grounds as pleaded by him in the petition? OPR.

[6] In order to prove his case, respondent-husband stepped into

witness box as PW1, besides examining his mother Vidya Wati as PW2

and Than Singh son of Tulshi Ram r/o Sanjay Colony, Panipat, as PW3.

He also tendered documentary evidence as Ex.P1 to Ex.P11.

[7] On the other hand, appellant-wife herself appeared as RW1

and her evidence was closed vide order dated 13.12.2013.

6 of 19

FAO-M-139 of 2014

[8] The Family Court has returned the findings in favour of the

respondent-husband and decided issue No.1 against appellant-wife. It

was observed that appellant has withdrawn from the society of the

respondent without sufficient reason. Therefore, the respondent-husband

was held entitled to a decree of divorce under Section 13(1)(i-a) and

13(1)(i-b) of the HMA.

[9] Learned counsel for the appellant contended that impugned

judgment and decree passed by the Family Court are based on mere

conjectures and surmises. She never committed any adultery and always

remained committed to her husband. Learned counsel contended that

appellant never deserted the respondent and never misbehaved with the

respondent's parents. Appellant always tried her best to save her

matrimonial life. She was and is always willing to live with the

respondent peacefully. Learned counsel for the appellant further

contended that respondent has been granted divorce on false grounds.

Therefore, impugned judgment and decree of the Family Court are liable

to be set aside.

[10] Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent supported the

judgment and decree passed by the Family Court. He contended that

respondent has been granted divorce rightly by the Family Court as the

appellant was already pregnant at the time of her marriage with the

respondent. This act and conduct of the appellant amounts to cruelty.

Moreover, her behaviour remained cruel towards respondent's family

members. Appellant left the company of the respondent in August, 2007

and despite numerous efforts never returned back. Resultantly, in July,

7 of 19

FAO-M-139 of 2014

2011 respondent filed petition under Section 13 of the HMA for a decree

of divorce by way of dissolution of marriage, which has rightly been

allowed by the Family Court, vide impugned judgment and decree dated

05.02.2014.

[11] We have considered the rival submissions made by learned

counsel for the parties and perused the records.

[12] Matrimonial cases are matters of delicate human and

emotional relationship. It demands mutual trust, regard, respect, love and

affection with sufficient play for reasonable adjustments with the spouse.

The relationship has to conform to the social norms as well. The

matrimonial conduct has now come to be governed by statute framed,

keeping in view such norms and changed social order. It is sought to be

controlled in the interest of the individuals as well as in broader

perspective, for regulating matrimonial norms for making of a well-knit,

healthy and not a disturbed and porous society. The institution of marriage

occupies an important place and role to play in the society, in general.

[13] In support of his case, respondent-husband stepped into

witness box as PW1 and tendered his affidavit Ex.PW-1/A wherein he

reiterated all the averments made in the petition for divorce filed by him.

Respondent stated that he tried to cohabit with the appellant on the first

night of the marriage but he could not penetrate properly. On the next

date he consulted an expert doctor regarding his problem, who advised

him to get operated. He immediately got admitted in Prabhakar Hospital,

where he was operated and was advised bed rest for 15 days due to

stitches. He could not make physical contact with the appellant for a

8 of 19

FAO-M-139 of 2014

period of 20/25 days after the marriage. After recovering from the

operation, he again tried to have physical relations with the appellant. At

that time appellant disclosed to him that because of her error before

marriage, as she was in love affair with a boy, she was apprehending that

she might have conceived because the date of menstruation had expired.

The respondent suffered a great mental pain and agony and after that he

could not come in contact of the appellant. Respondent disclosed this fact

to his mother. Due to this, respondent and his family members told the

mother of the appellant that they could not settle appellant in their family.

Appellant and her mother suggested the respondent to get abort the

pregnancy of the appellant without disclosing this fact to anybody.

Respondent keeping in view his own image as well as image of his

family, accepted the suggestion of appellant and her mother.

Respondent's mother and mother of the appellant got the appellant-wife

checked from Dr. Bharti Dhawan of Hyderabadi Hospital, Sonali Road,

Panipat, who confirmed the pregnancy of appellant prior to the marriage.

Mother of the appellant took the appellant with herself with an assurance

that after getting her pregnancy aborted she would leave the appellant

with the respondent in her matrimonial home. However, without getting

the unwanted pregnancy terminated mother of the appellant left her at

respondent's house on 21.08.2005. Mother of the appellant again came

to the house of the respondent on 27.08.2005 and got checked her

daughter in Hyderabadi Hospital, Panipat, where Dr. Bharti Dhawan got

ultrasound of the respondent on 27.08.2005 and confirmed about the

pregnancy of respondent prior to her marriage. With the help of

9 of 19

FAO-M-139 of 2014

medicines prescribed by Dr. Bharti Dhawan, unwanted pregnancy of the

appellant was terminated. After that respondent tried his best to live with

the appellant in a happy atmosphere, but all his efforts failed and she

compelled the respondent to live in city. To run his married life properly,

appellant and respondent started living at Yamunanangar where appellant

was got admitted in Sant Nischal Singh Education College to do a degree

of JBT by the respondent and she started living in the hostel of said

college separate from the respondent. The respondent joined a private job

in Thopson Systems Pvt Litd, Karnal. After some time, appellant and the

respondent started to live in a rented accommodation at Yamunanagar.

Even then the behaviour of the appellant did not change and she again

started to manhandle the respondent. Appellant and respondent were

debarred by father of the respondent from his moveable and immoveable

properties due to the act and conduct of the appellant by publishing an

information in a newspaper namely Dainik Jagran dated 04.07.2006. In

August, 2007 when the respondent had gone to his duty, appellant left his

company without proper cause and reason. She took all her istridhan,

gold and silver jewellery gifted by respondent and his parents as well as

other valuable household items with her. Respondent immediately

contacted the appellant and her mother and asked the reason for leaving

her matrimonial home but she did not give satisfactory reply and flatly

refused to join his company. At that time appellant was pregnant. All his

efforts to bring back the appellant failed. Appellant delivered a male

child, namely, Gatik on 21.10.2007 at her parental home but all the

expenses of delivery were borne by the respondent. After the delivery of

10 of 19

FAO-M-139 of 2014

the male child, respondent as well as his relatives again tried to bring back

the appellant and many panchayats were convened but in vain. It is

further stated that appellant is serving as a JBT teacher at village

Sikandarpur Majra, District Sonepat and is drawing a salary of more than

Rs.25,000/- per month and on the other hand respondent is an

unemployed person that is why appellant has developed ego in her mind

and she considers herself as superior than the respondent. That is why

despite repeated efforts of the respondent, she flatly refused to join his

company. As the appellant has refused to live with the respondent as his

legally wedded wife, therefore, he has no other way except to get the

marriage dissolved by a decree of divorce. It is further submitted that

appellant and the respondent are living separately since the month of

August 2007 and now there is no relationship between them as husband

and wife. There is no cohabitation between them since their separation.

The marriage of the appellant and the respondent has gone in a dead

position which cannot be revived and the same amounts to irretrievable

break down of marriage which is one of the grounds to dissolve the

marriage of the appellant and the respondent. As the appellant attributed

cruelties and deserted the respondent and left his company without any

proper cause or reason and flatly refused to join his company, hence

petition had been filed. In support of his averments, respondent tendered

following documents: -

"i) Copy of certificate of registration of marriage dated 20.07.2005 as Ex.P-1.

11 of 19

FAO-M-139 of 2014

ii) Copy of letter dated 18.08.2009 in the name of Sarpanch Gram Panchayat Garhwal District Sonepat as Ex.P2.

iii) Copy of reminder in the name of Sarpanch Gram Pancyhayat by deponent as Ex.P-3.

iv) Copy of letter dated 07.08.2009 by Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Barauli in the name of Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Garhwal as Ex.P-4.

v) Copy of OPD slip no.43572 dated 27.08.2005 issued by Dr. Bharti Dhawan, Gynaeocologist Hyderabadi and Nursing Home Panipat as Ex.P-5.

vi) Copy of report of Ultrasound of appellant dated 27.08.2005 as Ex.P-6.

vii) Copy of receipt no.83747 issued by Hyderabadi and Nursing Home Panipat dated 27.08.2005 as Ex.P-7.

viii) Copy of OPD slip no.40295 dated 01.09.2005 as Ex.P8.

ix) Copy of receipt no.83917 dated 03.09.2005 as Ex.P-9.

x) Copy of X-ray Ultrasound and copy of prescription slip issued by Dr. Bharti Dhawan dated 27.08.2005 as Ex.P10."

[14] To prove her case, appellant-Sushma appeared as RW1 in the

witness box. During her cross-examination, appellant stated that she did

not know whether respondent was admitted in Prabhakar Hospital,

Panipat where he was operated because on the first day of marriage he

was not able to penetrate. It is correct that she contacted Dr. Bharti

Dhawan of Hyderabadi hospital, Panipat and told her last mensuration

date as 21.07.2005. Firstly, she contacted Dr. Bharti Dhawan on

27.08.2005. She had seen a receipt dated 27.08.2005, 03.09.2005,

prescription slip dated 27.08.2005, ultra sound report dated 27.08.2005,

prescription slip dated 01.09.2005 and ultrasound films Ex.P5 to Ex.P10.

12 of 19

FAO-M-139 of 2014

She further stated that in para no.8 of affidavit Ex.P11 it has rightly been

stated by her that the husband of deponent namely Sunil Kumar

physically contacted her after 4/5 days of his operation. It was also

correct that she had mentioned in para no.9 of affidavit Ex.P11 that

abortion was done on the advise of Dr. Bharti Dhawan. It is correct that

Dr. Bharti Dhawan had examined her radiologically and done her urine

test vide which she was found pregnant. Dr. Bharti Dhawan disclosed

before her that she was pregnant for four weeks. She never disclosed all

these facts before her mother. She as well as respondent are living

separately since July, 2010. She further stated that she does not remember

lastly when she left the matrimonial home. Child was born on 21.10.2007

at Gohana in her parental home. She started doing job on 05.01.2011 at

village Sikandarpur Majra near Gohana. Now-a-days she is working as

JBT teacher at Government Primary School, Sikandar Pur Majra, District

Sonepat and drawing a salary of Rs.27,000/- per month. She had been

residing in her parental home at Gohana since the birth of child namely

Gatik. She could not tell the exact date, month and year when the

respondent physically (sexually) contacted her.

[15] From the above deposition of the respondent-wife, it is

axiomatic that entire case set up by her stands totally demolished from her

own statement as RW1 wherein she has admitted in so many words that

she is living separately since July, 2007; respondent made physical

contact with her after 4-5 days of the operation as on the first day of

marriage he was not able to penetrate and the abortion was done on the

advice of Dr. Bharti Dhawan.

13 of 19

FAO-M-139 of 2014

[16] As per ultrasound report of Mrs. Sushma i.e. appellant dated

27.08.2005 (Ex.P6) there was 5 wks+1wks gestation early pregnancy.

From the oral as well as documentary evidence available on record it is

amply clear that appellant was pregnant even prior to the date of her

marriage with the respondent and this fact was willfully concealed by her

from the respondent and his family members. It is further proved that

even after getting operated, respondent could not make physical contact

with the appellant for 4-5 days. After joining as JBT teacher, appellant

developed some ego problem and started living separately from the

respondent as he was unemployed and inferior to her.

[17] From the abovesaid evidence on record it is duly proved that

it is the appellant who has withdrawn from the society of the respondent

without any reasonable cause. No cogent and reliable evidence could

have been led by the appellant which may show that respondent has

withdrawn himself from the company of the appellant without any

sufficient reason or cause. Rather it is the appellant who has deserted the

respondent for a continuous period of not less than two years immediately

preceding of the presentation of the petition for divorce.

[18] The next issue for consideration in the present appeal would

be whether the relationship of the husband and wife has come to an end

and if the appellant-wife is not ready to give mutual divorce to the

respondent-husband, whether this act of her, would amount to cruelty

towards husband, keeping in view the fact that she is not staying with her

husband for the last more than eleven years and there is no scope that they

can cohabit as husband and wife again. Reference at this stage can be

14 of 19

FAO-M-139 of 2014

made to a judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India in a case of

Chandra Kala Trivedi vs. Dr. S.P.Trivedi, 1993 (4) SCC 232 wherein

Hon'ble the Supreme Court was considering a case where marriage was

irretrievably broken down and held that in this case, the decree of divorce

can be granted where both the parties have levelled such allegations

against each other that the marriage appears to be practically dead and the

parties cannot live together.

[19] Reference at this stage can be made to a judgment of three

Judge Bench of Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India in case of A

Jayachandra vs. Aneel Kaur, 2005 (2) SCC 22 wherein Hon'ble the

Supreme Court was having an occasion to consider the case of divorce on

the basis of cruelty including mental cruelty. While examining the

pleadings and evidence brought on record, the Court emphasized that the

allegation of cruelty is of such nature in which resumption of marriage is

not possible, however, referring to various decisions, the Court observed

that irretrievable breaking down of marriage is not one of statutory

grounds on which Court can direct dissolution of marriage, this Court has

with a view to do complete justice and shorten the agony of the parties

engaged in longdrawn legal battle, directed in those cases dissolution of

marriage. In para 17, it has been observed as under:-

"17. Several decisions, as noted above, were cited by learned counsel for the respondent to contend that even if marriage has broken down irretrievably decree of divorce cannot be passed. In all these cases it has been categorically held that in extreme cases the court can direct dissolution of marriage on the ground that the marriage had broken down irretrievably as is clear

15 of 19

FAO-M-139 of 2014

from para 9 of Shyam Sunder case. The factual position in each of the other cases is also distinguishable. It was held that long absence of physical company cannot be a ground for divorce if the same was on account of the husband's conduct. In Shyam Sunder case it was noted that the husband was leading adulterous life and he cannot take advantage of his wife shunning his company. Though the High Court held by the impugned judgment that the said case was similar, it unfortunately failed to notice the relevant factual difference in the two cases. It is true that irretrievable breaking of marriage is not one of the statutory grounds on which court can direct dissolution of marriage, this Court has with a view to do complete justice and shorten the agony of the parties engaged in long- drawn legal battle, directed in those cases dissolution of marriage. But as noted in the said cases themselves, those were exceptional cases."

[20] Hon'ble the Supreme Court in a case of Naveen Kohli vs.

Neetu Kohli, 2006 (4) SCC 558 was considering a case of irretrievable

break down of marriage. In this case, wife living separately for long but

did not want divorce by mutual consent only to make life of her husband

miserable. Thus, the decree of divorce was granted and held it is a cruel

treatment and showed that the marriage had broken irretrievably. In para

62, 67, 68 and 69, it has been observed as under:-

"62. Even at this stage, the respondent does not want divorce by mutual consent. From the analysis and evaluation of the entire evidence, it is clear that the respondent has resolved to live in agony only to make life a miserable hell for the appellant as well. This type

16 of 19

FAO-M-139 of 2014

of adamant and callous attitude, in the context of the facts of this case, leaves no manner of doubt in our mind that the respondent is bent upon treating the appellant with mental cruelty. It is abundantly clear that the marriage between the parties had broken down irretrievably and there is no chance of their coming together, or living together again. The High Court ought to have visualized that preservation of such a marriage is totally unworkable which has ceased to be effective and would be greater source of misery for the parties.

xxx xxx xxx

67. The High Court ought to have considered that a human problem can be properly resolved by adopting a human approach. In the instant case, not to grant a decree of divorce would be disastrous for the parties. Otherwise, there may be a ray of hope for the parties that after a passage of time (after obtaining a decree of divorce) the parties may psychologically and emotionally settle down and start a new chapter in life.

68. In our considered view, looking to the peculiar facts of the case, the High Court was not justified in setting aside the order of the Trial Court. In our opinion, wisdom lies in accepting the pragmatic reality of life and take a decision which would ultimately be conducive in the interest of both the parties.

69. Consequently, we set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court and direct that the marriage between the parties should be dissolved according to the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. In the extra-ordinary facts and circumstances of the case, to resolve the problem in the interest of all concerned, while dissolving the marriage between the parties, we direct the appellant to pay Rs.25,00,000/- (Rupees

17 of 19

FAO-M-139 of 2014

Twenty five lacs) to the respondent towards permanent maintenance to be paid within eight weeks. This amount would include Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees five lacs with interest) deposited by the appellant on the direction of the Trial Court. The respondent would be at liberty to withdraw this amount with interest. Therefore, now the appellant would pay only Rs.20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty lacs) to the respondent within the stipulated period. In case the appellant fails to pay the amount as indicated above within the stipulated period, the direction given by us would be of no avail and the appeal shall stand dismissed. In awarding permanent maintenance we have taken into consideration the financial standing of the appellant." [21] In the present case, the marriage between the parties had

broken down irretrievably and there is no chance of their coming together,

or living together again. Further, not to grant decree of divorce would be

disastrous for the parties.

[22] The three Judges' Bench of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in a

case of Samar Ghosh vs. Jaya Ghosh, 2007 (4) SCC 511 passed the

decree on the ground of mental cruelty but the concept of irretrievable

breakdown of marriage has been discussed in detail referring the 71st

report of the Law Commission of India.

[23] Hon'ble the Supreme Court in a case of K. Srinivas Rao vs.

D.A. Deepa, 2013 (5) SCC 266 has observed that though irretrievable

breakdown of marriage is not a ground for divorce under the Hindu

Marriage Act, however, marriage which is dead for all purposes, cannot

be revived by Court's verdict, if parties are not willing since marriage

involves human sentiments and emotions and if they have dried up, there

18 of 19

FAO-M-139 of 2014

is hardly any chance of their springing back to life on account of artificial

reunion created by court decree.

[24] It is well settled that once the parties have separated and

separation has continued for a sufficient length of time and anyone of

them presented a petition for divorce, it can well be presumed that the

marriage has broken down. The Court, no doubt, should seriously make

an endeavour to reconcile the parties; yet, if it is found that the breakdown

is irreparable, then divorce should not be withheld. The consequences of

preservation in law of the unworkable marriage which has long ceased to

be effective are bound to be a source of greater misery for the parties.

[25] For the reasons afore-stated, the Family Court was perfectly

justified in holding that there were hardly any chances that the appellant

and the respondent could lead a happy married life because a lot of

bitterness has been created in their relationship.

[26] Learned counsel for the appellant is unable to point out any

illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment and decree which calls

for interference by this Court.

[27]         Consequently, this appeal is dismissed.



                    (RituBahri)                (Ashok Kumar Verma)
                       Judge                         Judge
March 25, 2022
R.S.


             Whether speaking/reasoned                     Yes

             Whether Reportable                            Yes




                                  19 of 19