Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
CASE NO.:
Appeal (civil) 5129 of 2006
PETITIONER:
Rishikesh Sharma
RESPONDENT:
Saroj Sharma
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 21/11/2006
BENCH:
DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN & TARUN CHATTERJEE JJ
JUDGMENT:
JUDGMENT
Dr. AR. Lakshmanan, J.
Leave granted.
The husband is the appellant before us. The respondent is his wife. They
got married according to the Hindu rites and customs in the year 1972.
After three years of marriage a daughter was born of the wedlock. Because
of the misunderstanding between them the respondent started living
separately from her husband from the year 1981 onwards and is working in
the Social Forestry Department. The respondent also filed several criminal
proceedings against her husband with which we are not concerned in this
appeal.
In the year 1989 the appellant filed a petition for a decree of dissolution
of marriage on the ground of mental cruelty and the respondent having
deserted him without any reasonable cause. The District Judge, Gwalior,
dismissed the petition filed by the husband for dissolution of the
marriage. The Appellant filed a first appeal in the High Court under Sec.
28 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The High Court also dismissed the appeal of
the appellant. The appellant has therefore questioned the correctness of
the order passed by the High Court in the above appeal.
We heard Mr. A.K. Chitale, learned senior counsel and Mr. S.S.Dahiya,
learned counsel for the respondent and perused the judgment passed by both
the trial court and also of the High court. It is not in dispute that the
respondent is living separately from the year 1981. Though the finding has
been rendered by the High Court that the wife last resided with her husband
up to 25.3.1989, the said finding according to the learned counsel for the
appellant is not correct. In view of the several litigations between the
parties it is not possible for her to prosecute criminal case against the
husband and at the same time continue to reside with her husband. In the
instant case the marriage is irretrievably broken down with no possibility
of the parties living together again. Both the parties have crossed 49
years and living separately and working independently since 1981. There
being a history of litigation with respondent-wife repeatedly filing
criminal cases against the appellant which could not be substantiated as
found by the Courts. This apart, only child born in the wedlock in 1975 has
already been given in marriage. Under such circumstances the High Court was
not justified in refusing to exercise its jurisdiction in favour of the
appellant. This apart, the wife also has made certain allegations against
her husband, that the husband has already remarried and is living with
another lady as stated by her in the written statement. The High Court also
has not considered the allegations made by the respondent which have been
repeatedly made and repeatedly found baseless by the courts.
In our opinion it will not be possible for the parties to live together and
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
therefore there is no purpose in compelling both the parties to live
together. Therefore the best course in our opinion is to dissolve the
marriage by passing a decree of divorce so that the parties who are
litigating since 1981 and have lost valuable part of life can live
peacefully in remaining part of their life.
During the last hearing both the husband and wife were present in Court.
Husband was ready and willing to pay lumpsum by way of permanent alimony to
the wife. The wife was not willing to accept the lumpsum but however
expressed her willingness to live with her husband. We are of the opinion
that her desire to live with her husband at this stage and at this distance
of time is not genuine. Therefore, we are not accepting this suggestion
made by the wife and reject the same.
In the result, the appeal filed by the husband stands allowed. There will
be a decree of dissolution of marriage in favour of the husband.
No costs.