R.SRINIVAS KUMAR vs. R.SHAMETHA

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4696 OF 2013 R. Srinivas Kumar …Appellant Versus R. Shametha …Respondent J U D G M E N T M.R. SHAH, J. Feeling   aggrieved   and   dissatisfied   with   the   impugned judgment and order dated 06.02.2012 passed in C.M.A. No. 4142 of  2003   by   the   High   Court   of   Judicature   Andhra   Pradesh   at Hyderabad,   by   which   the   High   Court   has   dismissed   the   said appeal preferred by the appellant­husband and has confirmed the   judgment   and   order   passed   by   the   learned   Family   Court refusing to pass a decree of divorce against the respondent­wife, the appellant­husband has preferred the present appeal. 1 2. That the marriage of the appellant and the respondent took place   on   09.05.1993.     That   out   of   the   said   wedlock,   the respondent gave birth to a male child on 29.08.1995.  It appears that there were differences of opinion between the parties and according to the appellant­husband, cruelty was meted out to him.  Up to 1997, many a times, the respondent­wife stayed at her   parental   house.     The   appellant­husband   filed   a   divorce petition in the year 1999 being O.P. No. 157 of 1999 before the Family Court at Hyderabad.  That the said petition was filed for a decree of divorce against the respondent­wife under Section 13(1) (ia) and (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.  That the learned Family Court dismissed the said divorce petition by observing and holding that the appellant­husband has failed to prove the cruelty by the respondent­wife.  The Family Court also refused to pass a decree of divorce on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage. 2.1 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order   passed   by   the   Family   Court   at   Hyderabad   dated 04.09.2003   in   O.P.   No.   157   of   1999   dismissing   the   divorce petition, the appellant­husband preferred an appeal before the 2 High Court.  Before the High Court also, the appellant­husband sought   a   decree   of   divorce   on   the   ground   of   irretrievable breakdown of marriage.  By the impugned judgment and order, the   High   Court   has   dismissed   the   said   appeal.     Hence,   the appellant­husband is before this Court by way of the present appeal. 3. Shri   Guru   Krishna   Kumar,   learned   Senior   Advocate appearing   on   behalf   of   the   appellant­husband   has   made strenuous   efforts   to   upset   the   findings   recorded   by   both   the courts  below   on   cruelty.     In  the   alternative,   it   is   vehemently submitted by Shri Guru Krishna Kumar, learned Senior Advocate appearing   on   behalf   of   the   appellant­husband   that   both   the appellant­husband   and   the   respondent­wife   are   residing separately since last 22 years and that it is impossible to save the marriage and that there is no chance of marriage surviving and it is broken beyond repair.  It is submitted that therefore as there is irretrievable breakdown of marriage it is in the fitness of the things to dissolve the marriage even in exercise of the powers under   Article   142   of   the   Constitution   of   India   and   to   do substantial justice to the parties. 3 3.1 In   support   of   his   alternative   submission   to   dissolve   the marriage on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage, learned Senior Advocate has heavily relied upon the following decisions   of   this   Court,   Durga   Prasad   Tripathy   v.   Arundathi Tripathy (2005) 7 SCC 353; Naveen Kohli v. Neelu Kohli (2006) 4 SCC 558; Sanghamitra Ghosh v. Kajal Kumar Ghosh (2007) 2 SCC 220; Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh (2007) 4 SCC 511; K. Srinivas Rao v. D.A. Deepa (2013) 5 SCC 226; and Sukhendu Das v. Rita Mukherjee (2017) 9 SCC 632. 3.2 Shri   Guru   Krishna   Kumar,   learned   Senior   Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant­husband has also stated at the Bar that the appellant­husband is ready and willing to pay a reasonable permanent alimony to the respondent­wife in case a decree of  dissolution  of  marriage  is  granted  to  the   appellant­ husband. 4. The present appeal is vehemently opposed by Shri Jayant Kumar   Mehta,   learned   Advocate   appearing   on   behalf   of   the respondent­wife. He has vehemently submitted that this is not a fit case to dissolve the marriage between the appellant and the respondent on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage, 4 in exercise of the powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India. 4.1 It   is   vehemently   submitted   by   the   learned   Advocate appearing   on   behalf   of   the   respondent­wife   that   a   decree   of divorce   cannot   be   granted   on   the   ground   of   irretrievable breakdown of marriage, if either of the parties is not willing and has not consented to such dissolution.  It is submitted that only in a case where both the parties to the marriage agree and/or give   consent,   the   marriage   can   be   dissolved   and   a   decree   of divorce can be passed on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage. 4.2 Making   the   above   submissions   and   relying   upon   the following decisions of this Court in the cases of  Chetna Dass v. Kamla   Devi   (2001   4   SCC   250;   Vishnu   Dutt   Sharma   v.   Manju Sharma (2009) 6 SCC 379; Hitesh Bhatnagar v. Deepa Bhatnagar (2011) 5 SCC 234; Darshan Gupta v. Radhika Gupta (2013) 9 SCC 1; and Manish Goel v. Rohini Goel (2010) 4 SCC 393 , it is prayed to dismiss the present appeal. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties at length. 5 5.1 At the outset, it is required to be noted and does not seem to be in dispute  that since last 22 years both the appellant­ husband and the respondent­wife are residing separately. It also appears that all efforts to continue the marriage have failed and there   is   no   possibility   of   re­union   because   of   the   strained relations between the parties.   Thus, it appears that marriage between   the   appellant­husband   and   the   respondent­wife   has irretrievably   broken   down.     In   the   case   of   Hitesh   Bhatnagar (supra) ,   it   is   noted   by   this   Court   that   Courts   can   dissolve  a marriage as irretrievably broken down only when it is impossible to save the marriage and all efforts are made in that regard and when the Court is convinced beyond any doubt that there is actually no chance of the marriage surviving and it is broken beyond repair. 5.2 In the case of  Naveen Kohli (supra) , a three Judge Bench of this Court has observed as under: “74. ……Once the marriage has broken down beyond repair, it would be unrealistic for the law not to take notice of that fact, and it would be harmful to society and injurious to the interests of the parties.   Where there has been a long period of continuous separation, it may fairly be surmised that the matrimonial bond is beyond repair. The marriage becomes a fiction, though supported by a legal tie.  By refusing to sever that tie 6 the law in such cases does not serve the sanctity of marriage; on the contrary, it shows scant regard for the feelings and emotions of the parties. 85. Undoubtedly, it is the obligation of the court and all concerned that the marriage status should, as far as possible, as long as possible and whenever possible, be maintained, but when the marriage is totally dead, in that   event,   nothing   is   gained   by   trying   to   keep   the parties  tied  forever  to a marriage  which in  fact has ceased to exist…. 86. In view of the fact that the parties have been living separately for more than 10 years and a very large   number   of   aforementioned   criminal   and   civil proceedings   have   been   initiated   by   the   respondent against the appellant and some proceedings have been initiated by the appellant against the respondent, the matrimonial bond between the parties is beyond repair. A marriage between the parties is only in name.   The marriage has been wrecked beyond the hope of salvage, public interest and interest of all concerned lies in the recognition of he fact and to declare defunct   de jure what is already defunct  de facto….” [emphasis supplied] A   similar   view   has   been   expressed   in   the   case   of   Samar Ghosh (supra).   In the similar set of facts and circumstances of the case, this Court   in   the   case   of   Sukhendu   Das   (supra)   has   directed   to dissolve the marriage on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage,   in   exercise   of   powers   under   Article   142   of   the 7 Constitution of India.  6. Now so far as submission on behalf of the respondent­wife that unless there is a consent by both the parties,   even   in   exercise   of   powers   under   Article   142   of   the Constitution of India the marriage cannot be dissolved on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage is concerned, the aforesaid has no substance.  If both the parties to the marriage agree for separation permanently and/or consent for divorce, in that  case,   certainly   both  the   parties  can   move   the  competent court for a decree of divorce by mutual consent.  Only in a case where one of the parties do not agree and give consent, only then the powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India are required to be invoked to do the substantial Justice between the parties,   considering   the   facts   and   circumstances   of   the   case. However, at the same time, the interest of the wife is also required to be protected financially so that she may not have to suffer financially   in   future   and   she   may   not   have   to   depend   upon others. 7. This   Court,   in   a   series   of   judgments,   has   exercised   its inherent powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India for dissolution of a marriage where the Court finds that the marriage 8 is totally unworkable, emotionally dead, beyond salvage and has broken down irretrievably, even if the facts of the case do not provide a ground in law on which the divorce could be granted. In the present case, admittedly, the appellant­husband and the respondent­wife   have   been   living   separately   for   more   than   22 years and it will not be possible for the parties to live together. Therefore, we are of the opinion that while protecting the interest of the respondent­wife to compensate her by way of lump sum permanent alimony, this is a fit case to exercise the powers under Article   142   of   the   Constitution   of   India   and   to   dissolve   the marriage between the parties. 8. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the application   for   divorce   filed   by   the   appellant­husband   for dissolution of marriage is hereby allowed.  The marriage between the appellant­husband and the respondent­wife is ordered to be dissolved   in   exercise   of   powers   under   Article   142   of   the Constitution   of   India   on   the   condition   and   as   agreed   by   the learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant­ husband that the appellant­husband shall pay to the respondent­ wife   a   lump   sum   permanent   alimony,   quantified   at 9 Rs.20,00,000/­ (Rupees Twenty Lakhs) to be paid directly to the respondent­wife by way of demand draft within a period of eight weeks from today.  Till the permanent alimony as above is paid to the respondent­wife, the appellant­husband to continue to pay the maintenance as being paid to her. 9. The appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms.  No costs. ……………………………………..J. [SANJAY KISHAN KAUL] NEW DELHI; …………………………………….J. OCTOBER 04, 2019. [M.R. SHAH] 10