SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2018 Supreme(SC) 735

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, UDAY UMESH LALIT, JJ.
Manju Kumari Singh @ Smt. Manju Singh – Appellant(s)
VERSUS
Avinash Kumar Singh – Respondent(s)
CIVIL APPEAL NO.6988 of 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.19420 of 2017)
Decided On : 25-07-2018

IMPORTANT POINT
When marriage has become irretrievable, Supreme Court can dissolve it under Article 142.

Headnote:Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Section 13(a) – Article 142, Constitution of India – Couple living separately for more than a decade – No likelihood of both living together to continue their marital life – Courts below dissolving the marriage – Dissolving the marriage, directions given. (Para 11, 14, 15)

       (2006) 4 SCC 558; (2007) 2 SCC 220 – Relied upon

       Facts of the case:

       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 the marriage, which eventually led to filing of divorce petition by the respondent (husband) in the year 2001 against the appellant (wife) in the Family Court, Singhbhum East, Jamshedpur.

       The Family Judge dissolved the marriage between the appellant-wife and the respondent-husband on the ground that the allegation of cruelty and desertion against the appellant was proved and the suit filed by the respondent-husband for the dissolution of marriage was decreed.

       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.

       Finding of the Court:

       When marriage has become irretrievable, Supreme Court can dissolve it under Article 142.

       Result: Appeal disposed of.

JUDGMENT

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. 51 of 2004 whereby the High Court dismissed the 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 appellant-wife and the respondent-husband 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 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 appellant-wife and the respondent-husband on the ground that the allegation of cruelty and desertion against the appellant was proved and the suit filed by the respondent-husband for the dissolution of marriage was decreed.

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 appellant-wife 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 respondent-husband 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 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, respondent-in person 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 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 nu
















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top