Case: Durga Prasanna Vs. Arundhati Tripathy

cruelty. When leave was granted, this Court observed that they are granting leave because it appears to them that the marriage between the parties was in all practical purposes dead and the enforced continuity of the marriage will only mean that the parties will spend more years in bitterness against each other. Since the husband was in a position to provide reasonable maintenance or permanent alimony, this Court granted special leave. At the time of final hearing, this Court deleted the findings and has, however, decided not to interfere with the order passed by a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court. The husband, on the persuasion of this Court, agreed to provide a one bed-room flat to the wife in a locality where it can be available between Rs.3 and 4 lacs. Therefore, while dismissing the appeal, this Court directed the husband to purchase a flat for the wife and further deposit a sum of Rs.2 lacs by means of a demand draft in the name of the appellant with the Family Court. 26. In V. Bhagat v. D. Bhagat (Mrs) , 1994 (1) SCC 337 : AIR 1994 SC 710 , this Court while allowing the marriage to dissolve on ground of mental cruelty and in view of the irretrievable breakdown of marriage and the peculiar circumstances of the case, held that the allegations of adultery against the wife were not proved thereby vindicating her honour and character. This Court while exploring the other alternative observed that the divorce petition has been pending for more than 8 years and a good part of the lives of both the parties has been consumed in this litigation and yet, the end is not in sight and that the allegations made against each other in the petition and the counter by the parties will go to show that living together is out of question and rapprochement is not in the realm of possibility. This Court at page 720 of AIR has observed thus: “Before parting with this case, we think it necessary to append a clarification. Merely because there are allegations and counter allegations, a decree of divorce cannot follow. Nor is mere delay in disposal of the divorce proceedings by itself a ground. There must be really some extraordinary features to warrant grant of divorce on the basis of pleading (and other admitted material) without a full trial. Irretrievable breakdown of the marriage is not a ground by itself. But while scrutinising the evide nce on record to determine whether the ground(s) alleged is/are made out and in determining the relief to be granted, the said circumstance can certainly be borne in mind. The unusual step as the one taken by us herein can be resorted to only to clear up an insoluable mess , when the Court finds it in the interest of both parties.” 27. The decision Romesh Chander v. Savitri AIR 1995 SC 851 : 1995 AIR SCW 647, is yet another case where this Court in its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution directed the dissolution of the marriage subject to the transfer of the house of the husband in the name of the wife. In that case, the parties had not enjoyed the company of each other as husband and wife for 25 years, this is the second round of litigation which routing through the trial Court and the High Court has reached the Supreme Court. The appeal was based on cruelty. Both the Courts below have found that the allegation was not proved and consequently it could not be made the basis for claiming divorce. However, this Court after following the earlier decisions and in exercise of its power under Article 142 of the Constitution directed the marriage between the appellant and the respondent shall stand dissolved subject to the appellant transferring the house in the name of his wife within four months from the date of the order and the dissolution shall come into effect when the house is transferred and possession is handed over to the wife. 28. The facts and circumstances in the above three cases disclose that reunion is impossible. Our case on hand is one such. It is not in dispute that the appellant and the respondent are living away for the last 14 years. It is also true that a good part of the lives of both the parties has been consumed in this litigation. As observed by this Court, the end is not in sight. The assertion of the wife through her learned counsel at the time of hearing appears to be impractical. It is also a matter of record that dislike for each other was burning hot. 29. Before parting with this case, we think it necessary to say the following: Marriages are made in heaven. Both parties have crossed the point of no return. A workable solution is certainly not possible. Parties cannot at this stage reconcile themselves and live together forgetting their past as a bad dream. We, therefore, have no other option except to allow the appeal and set aside the judgment of the High Court and affirming the order of the Family Court granting decree for divorce. The Family Court has directed the appellant to pay a sum of Rs.50,000 towards permanent alimony to the respondent and pursuant to such direction the appellant had deposited the amount by way of bank draft. Considering the status of parties and the economic condition of the appellant who is facing criminal prosecution and out of job and also considering the status of the wife who is employed, we feel that a further sum of Rs.1 lakh by way of permanent alimony would meet the ends of justice. This shall be paid by the appellant within 3 months from today by an account payee demand draft drawn in fa vour of the respondent – Arundhati Tripathy and the dissolution shall come into effect when the demand draft is drawn and furnished to the respondent. 30.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]Both the Family Court as well as the High Court made efforts to bring about a reconciliation/rapprochement between the parties. The Family Court in this regard gave a clear finding that in spite of good deal of endeavour to effect a reconciliation the same could not be effected because of the insistence of the respondent to remain separately from herIt was totally an impracticable solution.This apart, since October, 1991 till date the respondent has not taken any steps from her side to go back to her matrimonial home.The Family Court has given cogent and convincing reasons for passing the decree of divorce in favour of the appellant. Having been convinced that there was no chance of reunion or reconciliation between the parties, more so because of the complaint filed by the respondent before the Mahila Commission, the Family Court with a view to put a quietus to the litigation inter se and the bitterness between the parties rightly passed the decree of divorce.In our view that 14 years have elapsed since the appellant and the respondent have been separated and there is no possibility of the appellant and the respondent resuming the normal marital life even though the respondent is willing to join her husband. There has been an irretrievable breakdown of marriage between the appellant the respondent. The respondent has also preferred to keep silent about her absence during the death of herand during the marriage ceremony of herThe complaint before the Mahila Commission does not implicate the appellant for dowry harassment though the respondent in her evidence before the Family Court has alleged dowry harassment by the appellant. It is pertinent to mention here that a complaint before the Mahila Commission was lodged after 7 years of the marriage alleging torture for dowry by theaw during the initial years of marriage. The said complaint was filed in 1998 that is only after notice was issued by the Family Court on 27.3.1997 on the application filed by the appellant under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The Family Court, on examination of the evidence on record, and having observed the demeanor of the witnesses concluded that the appellant had proved that the respondent is not only cruel but also deserted him since more than 7 years. The desertion as on date is more than 14 years and, therefore, in our view there has been an irretrievable breakdown of marriage between the appellant and the respondent. Even the Conciliation Officer before the Family Court gave its report that the respondent was willing to live with the appellant on the condition that they lived separately from his family. The respondent in her evidence had not disputed the fact that attempts have been made by the appellant and his family to bring her back to the matrimonial home for leading a conjugal life with the appellant. Apart from that, relationship between the appellant and the respondent have become strained over the years due to the desertion of the appellant by the respondent for several years. Under the circumstances, the appellant had proved before the Family Court both the factum of separation as well as animus deserendi which are the essential elements of desertion. The evidence adduced by the respondent before the Family Court belies her stand taken by her before the Family Court. Enough instances of cruelty meted out by the respondent to the appellant were cited before the Family Court and the Family Court being convinced granted the decree of divorce. The harassment by theof the respondent was ansince the same was alleged after a gap of 7 years of marriage and desertion by the respondent. The appellant having failed in his efforts to get back the respondent to her matrimonial home and having faced the trauma of performing the last rites of his deceased father without the respondent and having faced themeted out by the respondent to him and his family had, in our opinion, no other efficacious remedy but to approach the Family Court for decree of divorce.The submission made by Mr. Ranjan Mukherjee that the marriage between the appellant and the respondent has for all practical purposes become dead, that there can be no chance of being retrieved and that it was better to bring the marriage to an end merits acceptance and force.The facts and circumstances in the above three cases disclose that reunion is impossible. Our case on hand is one such. It is not in dispute that the appellant and the respondent are living away for the last 14 years. It is also true that a good part of the lives of both the parties has been consumed in this litigation. As observed by this Court, the end is not in sight. The assertion of the wife through her learned counsel at the time of hearing appears to be impractical. It is also a matter of record that dislike for each other was burning hot.e facts and circumstances in the above three cases disclose that reunion is impossible. Our case on hand is one such. It is not in dispute that the appellant and the respondent are living away for the last 14 years. It is also true that a good part of the lives of both the parties has been consumed in this litigation. As observed by this Court, the end is not in sight. The assertion of the wife through her learned counsel at the time of hearing appears to be impractical. It is also a matter of record that dislike for each other was burning hot.