RAJ KUMAR RANA versus RITA RATHORE
[2015] 2 S.C.R. 990, Supreme Court of India, 2015
Outcome: Appeal(s) allowed (Granted)
Segment: Body
A 
8 
c 
[2015] 2 S.C.R. 990 
RAJ KUMAR RANA 
v. 
RITA RATHORE 
(Civil Appeal No. 6161 of 2010) 
MARCH 10, 2015 
[V. GOPALA GOWDA AND R. BANUMATHI, JJ.] 
Hindu Maniage Act, 1955: s.13 - Divorce petition by 
husband - Dismissed by trial court and High Court -
Appeal - Supreme Court directed appellant-husband to 
deposit Rs. 10 lacs - On deposit of Rs. 1 o· lacs, parties 
0 referred to Mediation Centre - Respondent-wife filed 
affidavit expressing her consent for divorce and stated that 
the amount of Rs. 10 lacs deposited by appellant be paid 
to her as permanent alimony and also as maintenance of 
the minor son - Pursuant to the affidavit filed by the 
E respondent-wife and taking into consideration the strained 
relationship between the parties for long time, judgments 
of both the courts below set aside - In order to render 
justice between the parties, in exercise of power u/Article 
142 of the Constitution of India, the maniage between the 
F appellant and the respondent dissolved by mutual consent 
- Amount of Rs. 10 lacs lying in Court be invested in the 
name of minor son represented by the respondent in any 
one of the Nationalized Bank as per the choice of the 
respondent till he attains majority - The respondent is 
G permitted to withdraw the periodical interest accrued 
thereon once in a year directly from the bank and the same 
shall be utilized for the welfare of the minor son -
Constitution of India, 1950 -Article 142. 
H 
990
RAJ KUMAR RANA v. RITA RATHORE 
991 
.CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION :Civil Appeal No. 
A 
6161 of 2010 
From the Judgment and Order dated 10 .11.2008 of the 
High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla in F.A. 0. No. 
266 of 2004. 
B 
Harpreet Singh, Rajesh Gupta, Pratap Venugopal, K. 
J. John & Co. for the Appeallant. 
Ms. Radhika Gautam, E. C. Agrawala for the 
Respondent. 
C 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
R. BANUMATHI, J. 1. This appeal arises out of the 
judgment dated 10.11.2008 passed by the High Court of D 
Himachal Pradesh at Shimla in FAO (HMA) No.266/2004, 
dismissing the appellant's appeal and declining to pass the 
decree of divorce. 
2. Marriage between the appellant-husband and E 
respondent-wife was solemnized on 10.5.1997 and both of 
them resided together as husband and wife for about nine 
months. Case of the appellant is that both parties were 
employed in District Hospital at different places. Appellant 
was transferred to District Hospital, Solan, Himachal F 
Pradesh and he started living at Solan. By their joint efforts, 
they were able to get the respondent transferred to Solan. 
The respondent-wife became pregnant and she went to her 
parents house at Nirsu in Rampur, Himachal Pradesh. 
Case of the appellant is that in February 1998, respondent-
G 
wife left Solan for delivery at her parents house at Rampur 
and thereafter she never came back and never stayed with 
the appellant. Parties are said to have separated since 
February 1998 and a
male child was born out of their 
wedlock at Rampur on 2.6.1998. Appellant alleged that H
992 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015) 2 S.C.R. 
A despite his request, respondent continued to stay with her 
child at her parents house at Nirsu in Rampur. lnspite of 
being transferred to Solan, respondent refused to join the 
appellant at Solan and instead she got herself adjusted at 
IGMC Shimla. According to the appellant-husband, when 
B he requested the respondent-wife to part ways by mutual 
consent, respondent and her parents demanded 
Rs.10,00,000/- as maintenance. The appellant filed petition 
for divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act 
against the respondent on the ground of cruelty and 
C desertion. Vide its judgment dated 2.1.2003, District Judge, 
Solan dismissed the petition both on grounds of cruelty and. 
desertion. Regarding desertion, trial court observed that 
parties have strained relations for long time and are residing 
0 separately on account of exigencies of their services and 
not on account of hostilities and there was no animus 
deserendi on the part of the respondent in living separate. 
The appellant preferred appeal before the High Court and 
vide its judgment dated 10.11.2008, the High Court 
E dismissed the appeal. In this appeal, the appellant 
challenges the correctness of the dismissal of his divorce 
petition. 
3. Vide order dated 25.6.2014, while referring the 
F parties to mediation, this Court has asked the appellant 
whether he will be willing to deposit a sum of Rs.10,00,000/ 
- before this Court by way of permanent alimony
as well 
as maintenance for the male child from the marriage. 
Learned counsel for appellanUhusband submitted that the 
G sum of Rs.10,00,000/- will be deposited within six weeks 
from the date of the order. As per the order, commencement 
of mediation was made conditional on deposit of 
Rs.10,00,000/-. In compliance with the direction of t~is 
Court, the appellant has deposited a sum of Rs.10,00,000/ 
H -. The parties were referred to the Mediation Centre at
RAJ KUMAR RANA v. RITA RATHORE 
993 
[R. BANUMATHI, J.] 
Shimla. To enable the respondent-wife to travel to Shimla, A 
a further amount of Rs.25,000/- was paid to the respondent-
wife by way of demand draft. 
4. Expressing her consent for divorce and stating that 
the amount of Rs.10,00,000/- deposited by the appellant s 
in this Court be paid to her as permanent alimony and also 
as maintenance of the minor son, the respondent has filed 
affidavit. In the affidavit, the respondent has stated as 
under:-
c 
"It is most humbly submitted that in the interest of my 
son and overall bringing an end to the disputes, I am 
agreeable for a Divorce. However all the allegations/ 
contentions raised in Divorce Petition and the present 
Special Leave Petition are denied. The Appellant has o 
made bald and false allegations in these Petitions. In 
these circumstances, this Hon'ble Court may protect the 
interest of the Respondent herein by recording that the 
Divorce is being granted by mutual consent and 
accordingly pass appropriate orders in the interest of E 
justice." 
5. Pursuant to the affidavit filed by the respondent-wife, 
taking into consideration that the relationship between the 
parties are strained for quite a long time, judgments of both 
F 
the courts below are set aside and this appeal is allowed. 
In order to render justice between the parties, in exercise 
of oL•r power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, 
the marriage between the appellant and the
respondent is 
dissolved by mutual consent. The amount of Rs.10,00,000/ G 
- lying in this Court's deposit be invested in the name of 
minor son represented by the respondent in any one of the 
Nationalized Bank as per the choice of the respondent till 
he attains majority. The respondent is permitted to withdraw 
the periodical interest accrued thereon once in a year H

994 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 2 S.C.R. 
A directly from the bank and the same shall be utilized for the 
welfare of the minor son. No costs. Copy of this judgment 
shall be sent to the District Judge, Solan, H.P. 
Devika Gujral 
Appeal allowed.