MISC. APPEAL No.263 OF 2009 ---- Against the judgment and order dated 17.4.2009 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Muzaffarpur in Matrimonial Case No.51 of 2004. ---- PAWAN KUMAR SON OF SIKANDAR PRASAD, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-NAWANAGAR, NIYAMAT, P.O. NAWANAGAR, P.S. SAHEBGANJ, DISTRICT-MUZAFFARPUR. (Appellant) Versus SMT.JULI DEVI WIFE OF PAWAN KUMAR, C/O BIRBAL SAH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-LADORA CHOWK, P.O. LADORA DARGAH, P.S.KALYANPUR, DISTRICT-SAMASTIPUR AT PRESENT LEELA DEVI, MOTHER (Nurse), SADR HOSPITAL, SAMASTIPUR, AT,P.O.P.S. AND DISTIRICT-SAMASTIPUR. Respondents. FOR THE APPELLANT : MR. ARUN KUMAR PRASAD,ADVOCATE FOR THE RESPONDENT : MR. SUJIT KUMAR SINGH,ADVOCATE P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN SINHA THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN Navin Sinha, Jyoti Saran.JJ. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and the respondent. The parties were married on 19.7.2002. The appellant is stated to be matriculate and unemployed. The respondent is stated to be I.A. having qualification of a trained nurse, who pursued the nursing course even after her marriage. Marital discord developed between them gradually with both levelling allegations in one form or the other against the other. The trial court has come to a conclusive finding that the parties resided together at the matrimonial 2 home for 20 days only after the marriage. The appellant was continuously chided for being unemployed. In the meantime, the respondent is stated to have secured a contractual appointment as a nurse on a stipend of Rs.5000/- per month. The judgment in appeal opined that the appellant has failed to prove cruelty. The conciliation between them short-lived. The parties have been living away from each other for approximately eight years. Both of them filed their affidavits that they are not interested in continuing with the marriage but would like to part ways amicably to start a new life. In the judgment under appeal, it has been noticed that the respondent had agreed for divorce provided the marriage expenses were returned. The court, therefore, adjourned the matter to enable the counsel for the appellant to seek instructions on the issue of alimony. Subsequently the respondent indicated the marriage expenses to be Rs.25,000/-. Learned counsel for the respondent submits, on instructions, that she has no objection to the appeal being allowed subject to the appellant granting her permanent alimony. Counsel for the appellant produces before us a Demand Draft of Rs.1 Lac. bearing no.045512 dated 7.7.2010 drawn on the Samastipur Central Bank in the name of the respondent, which is handed over to her 3 counsel in the court during the course of the proceedings. In view of the clear stand of the parties, with regard to their incompatibility and disinterest to revive the marriage, no useful purpose shall be served by recourse to technicalities of the law where two human lives and their future is concerned. The law cannot be interpreted in a dead letter manner irrespective of its consequences. The duty of the Court is not to wreck human lives by legal obstinacy but to interpret the law meaningfully to advance human aspects. Counsel for the respondent submitted that she has no objection if the appeal is allowed. We therefore consider it prudent in the facts of the case to set aside the judgment and order dated 17.7.2009 in Matrimonial Case No.51 of 2004 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court at Muzaffarpur. The appeal stands allowed. (Navin Sinha,J.) (Jyoti Saran,J.) Patna High Court, Dated, 15th July,2010, NAFR/ ahk.