Case: Durga Prasanna Vs. Arundhati Tripathy

3. The marriage between the appellant and the respondent was solemnized on 5.3.1991. After the marriage, the parties led their conjugal life in the village to which the appellant belongs and thepersuaded the appellant to stay at Bhubaneswar, the place of her service as well as her parental place. The husband did not approve such proposal as a result of which dispute arose between the parties. It was alleged that thebehaved with her husband and herin a cruel manne r. She deserted the appellant by staying in the house of her father since 22.10.1991. The appellant and his parents tried their best to bring theto the marital home but all their efforts were in vain. Thereafter, on 26.5.1996, for the marriage ceremony of theyounger brother, the mother of the appellant also went to bring the respondent but the latter was not inclined to come but misbehaved and insulted herfather expired and for which also the father of the respondent was requested by the appellant to send the respondent to the house of the appellant since being the eldestbut then also the respondent did not come. Even after the death of thefather, the respondent in spite of several requests by the appellant and his family members did not join the company of the appellant. The respondent, furthermore, joined the Office of the Civil Supplies at Puri and in view of this, the respondent and her father always insist ed the appellant to shift to Bhubaneswar. The appellant, in view of this, after about 7 years from the date of separation took redress of the Court. After leaving the appellant, the respondent also joined as a Junior Assistant in the office of the Civil Supply Corporation.fe denied the allegations made against her. She further stated in her written statement that due to maltreatment of themother and brother she came back to her parents house. She also stated that she was willing to live separately from herw. She, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the proceedings.5. Both parties led oral evidence in support of their respective cases. The appellant was examined as P.W.1. During his evidence he corroborated the facts made in the original application for divorce. He has also stated that he is not willing to stay with the respondent as husband and wife after a long lapse of about 9 years and there is no chance of reunion between the parties. The respondent examined herself as O.P.W.1. She also filed bunch of documents. On the basis of the pleadings and evidence of the parties, the Courts below framed an issue whether there is just and sufficient cause to pass a decree of divorce against theon the grounds of cruelty and desertion or not.6. The Family Court, Cuttack passed its judgment and allowed the petition filed by theunder Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act and thereby granted decree of divorce. The Family Court, after having heard the parties and after perusing the evidence on record, held as follows:nt declines to come to the marital home, undoubtedly it gave mental shock to thewhich knew no bounds. There is also no chance of reunion or reconciliation between the parties. The only course open to the Court is to pass a decree of divorce thereby to put an end to the litigation. Thehas proved to the satisfaction of the Court that theis not only cruel, but also deserted him since more than seven years, which are good grounds for passing a decree of, as regards the alimony the learned Judge directed theto pay Rs.50,000 to thetowards her permanent alimony, which was to be paid/deposited in the shape of bank. Aggrieved by the judgment of the Family Court, the respondent filed a civil appeal before the High Court of Orissa under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984.8. The appellant contended before the High Court that while allowing the proceedings under Section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act on the ground of cruelty and desertion, the Family Court dissolved the marriage solemnized between the parties on 05.03.1991 and 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 has deposited the amount by way of a bank draft.9. The High Court, vide its judgment dated 23.12.2003, set aside the decree of divorce passed by the Family Court and allowed the appeal filed by the respondent herein holding that the appellant had failed to prove cruelty and desertion as against the respondent.10. Aggrieved against the judgment of the High Court, the appellant preferred the above Special Leave Petition.

Court's reasoning:
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.