Full Judgment Text
NONREPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.6988 OF 2018
(Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.19420 of 2017)
Manju Kumari Singh @
Smt. Manju Singh ….Appellant(s)
VERSUS
Avinash Kumar Singh ….Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal is filed by the wife against the final
judgment and order dated 28.02.2017 passed by
the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi in F.A. No.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
ANITA MALHOTRA
Date: 2018.07.25
17:07:14 IST
Reason:
51 of 2004 whereby the High Court dismissed the
1
appeal and affirmed the judgment dated 23.12.2002
passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court,
Singhbhum East at Jamshedpur in Matrimonial
Suit No.40 of 2001 by which the marriage between
the appellantwife and the respondenthusband was
dissolved.
3. Few facts need to be mentioned infra to
appreciate the short issue involved in the appeal.
4. The appellant is the wife whereas the
respondent is the husband. The appellant and the
respondent were married on 16.02.1997. The
appellant is serving as a Teacher whereas the
respondent is a practicing advocate. The couple
was blessed with a daughter in 1998 and she has
been living with the appellant since birth. As on
this date, the daughter is studying and is of
marriageable age. Unfortunately, due to various
reasons, their married life was not cordial soon after
2
the marriage, which eventually led to filing of
divorce petition (Matrimonial Suit No.40/358 of
2001) by the respondent (husband) in the year 2001
against the appellant (wife) in the Family Court,
Singhbhum East, Jamshedpur.
5. The respondent sought divorce inter alia on the
ground of cruelty and desertion against the
appellant. The appellant denied the allegations of
cruelty/desertion and contested the suit by joining
issues.
6. By order dated 23.12.2002, the Family Judge
dissolved the marriage between the appellantwife
and the respondenthusband on the ground that
the allegation of cruelty and desertion against the
appellant was proved and the suit filed by the
respondenthusband for the dissolution of marriage
was decreed.
3
7. The appellant felt aggrieved, filed First Appeal
(51 of 2004) before the High Court of Jharkhand at
Ranchi. By order dated 24.09.2008, the High Court
affirmed the order passed by the Family Judge.
8. Challenging the said order, the appellantwife
filed an appeal before this Court. Vide order dated
09.01.2015, this Court remanded the matter to the
High Court for fresh hearing. Against the said
order, the respondenthusband filed a review
petition, which was dismissed vide this Court’s
order dated 14.07.2015.
9. After remanding, the High Court again heard
the matter. By impugned order, the High Court
dismissed the appellant’s appeal and affirmed the
order of the Family Judge and, in consequence,
allowed the respondent's divorce petition by
granting a decree of divorce in his favour on the
ground of desertion. It is against this order of the
4
High Court, the wife (appellant herein) felt aggrieved
and filed the present appeal by way of special leave
in this Court.
10. We have heard the learned counsel for the
parties, respondentinperson and perused the
record of the case.
11. It is not in dispute that the parties have been
living separately for the last more than a decade. All
attempts of reconciliation through mediation have
failed. It is, therefore, clear that there is absolutely
no chance of both living together to continue their
marital life.
12. In Naveen Kohli v. Neelu Kohli, (2006) 4 SCC
558, the husband had filed petition seeking divorce
on the ground of cruelty on the part of wife. While
the matter was pending in the Trial Court, efforts
were made for amicable settlement but without any
success. Finding that there was no cordiality left
5
between the parties to live together, the Trial Court
ordered dissolution of marriage and directed the
husband to deposit Rs.5 lakhs towards permanent
maintenance of the wife. The appeal at the instance
of the wife having been allowed, the husband
approached this Court by filing an appeal. The
observations of this Court in paragraphs 86 and 90
are relevant for our purposes and the same are
quoted hereunder:
“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 the fact
and to declare defunct de jure what is already
defunct de facto . To keep the sham is
obviously conducive to immorality and
potentially more prejudicial to the public
6
interest than a dissolution of the marriage
bond.
90. Consequently, we set aside the impugned
judgment of the High Court and direct that
the marriage between the parties should be
dissolved according to the provisions of the
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. In the
extraordinary facts and circumstances of the
case, to resolve the problem in the interest of
all concerned, while dissolving the marriage
between the parties, we direct the appellant
to pay Rs 25,00,000 (Rupees twentyfive
lakhs) to the respondent towards permanent
maintenance to be paid within eight weeks.
This amount would include Rs 5,00,000
(Rupees five lakhs with interest) deposited by
the appellant on the direction of the trial
court. The respondent would be at liberty to
withdraw this amount with interest.
Therefore, now the appellant would pay only
Rs 20,00,000 (Rupees twenty lakhs) to the
respondent within the stipulated period. In
case the appellant fails to pay the amount as
indicated above within the stipulated period,
the direction given by us would be of no avail
and the appeal shall stand dismissed. In
awarding permanent maintenance we have
taken into consideration the financial
standing of the appellant.”
7
13. In v.
Sanghamitra Ghosh Kajal Kumar
Ghosh , (2007) 2 SCC 220, it was observed in
paragraphs 18, 19, 20 and 21 as under:
“18. In the instant case, we are fully
convinced that the marriage between the
parties has irretrievably broken down because
of incompatibility of temperament. In fact
there has been total disappearance of
emotional substratum in the marriage. 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,
therefore, the public interest and interest of
all concerned lies in the recognition of the
fact and to declare defunct what is
de jure
already defunct as observed in
de facto
.
Naveen Kohli case(2006) 4 SCC 558
19. In view of peculiar facts and
circumstances of this case, we consider it
appropriate to exercise the jurisdiction of
this Court under Article 142 of the
Constitution.
20. In order to ensure that the parties may
live peacefully in future, it has become
imperative that all the cases pending
between the parties are directed to be
disposed of. According to our considered
view, unless all the pending cases are
disposed of and we put a quietus to litigation
between the parties, it is unlikely that they
8
would live happily and peacefully in future.
In our view, this will not only help the
parties, but it would be conducive in the
interest of the minor son of the parties.
21. On consideration of the totality of the
facts and circumstances of the case, we deem
it appropriate to pass the order in the
following terms:
( a ) the parties are directed to strictly adhere
to the terms of compromise filed before this
Court and also the orders and directions
passed by this Court;
( b ) we direct that the cases pending between
the parties, as enumerated in the preceding
paragraphs, are disposed of in view of the
settlement between the parties; and
( c ) all pending cases arising out of the
matrimonial proceedings including the case
of restitution of conjugal rights and
guardianship case between the parties shall
stand disposed of and consigned to the
records in the respective courts on being
moved by either of the parties by providing a
copy of this order, which has settled all those
disputes in terms of the settlement.”
14. In our considered view, in order to ensure that
the parties may live peacefully in future and their
daughter would be settled properly in her life, a
quietus must be given to all litigations between the
parties. Indeed both the learned counsel appearing
9
for the parties too agreed for this. Such an
approach, in our view, would be consistent with the
approach adopted by this Court in the aforesaid
matters. Consistent with the broad consensus
arrived at between the parties, we consider it just
and proper to dispose of the appeal with the
following directions:
(i) The respondenthusband will pay
a total sum of Rs. 10,00,000/(ten
lakhs) in two instalments towards
permanent alimony and maintenance
to the appellant and daughter.
(ii) First instalment of Rs. 5,00,000/
would be paid by the respondent
husband to the daughter by way of a
Demand Draft drawn in favour of his
daughter within three months from
the date of this order.
(iii) Second instalment of
Rs.5,00,000/ would be paid by the
10
respondenthusband to the daughter
by way of a Demand Draft drawn in
favour of his daughter within four
months from the date of payment of
first instalment.
(iv) All allegations made in pending
cases arising out of the matrimonial
proceedings including the one out of
which this appeal arises are expunged.
All proceedings pending in various
Courts, if any, shall stand disposed of
accordingly.
15. In view of the peculiar facts and circumstances
of this case, we also consider it appropriate to
exercise our power under Article 142 of the
Constitution in order to do substantial justice to the
parties to this appeal and accordingly declare
dissolution of their marriage subject to fulfillment of
the aforesaid conditions.
11
16. With the aforesaid directions, the appeal
stands accordingly disposed of. No costs.
………...................................J.
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE]
………...................................J.
[UDAY UMESH LALIT]
New Delhi;
July 25, 2018
12