IMPORTANT POINT
Divorce – Irretrievable breakdown of marriage can be a ground for dissolution of marriage.

ORDER :

1. The marriage inter se the parties was solemnized according to Hindu rites on 22.11.1985 from which a female child (Swetha Salini) was born in December, 1986. The appellant was in service of the Andhra Pradesh Police Department since 01.04.1984 and earned promotions thereafter and had since demitted office.

2. The appellant filed a petition for grant of divorce under Section 13(1) (ia) and (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, predicated on a plea that the respondent was suffering from some mental illness and was thus taken to her parental house, but subsequently failed to join him. The proceedings were initiated vide OP No. 236/1986 for annulment of marriage on the ground of desertion which was however subsequently withdrawn paving the way for their re-union on 27.09.1987.

3. It appears that the relationship between the parties did not normalize and the respondent lodged a complaint for dowry harassment under Section 498A, IPC, both against the appellant and his family members but the same was however closed.

4. The appellant again filed OP No. 209/1988 for divorce and the same was dismissed on contest. The appellant filed an appeal and once again the same was withdrawn in an endeavour to live together.

5. The third round began with filing of OP No. 407/1998 seeking restoration of conjugal rights but did not result in the respondent joining the company of the appellant and thereafter OP No. 413/1999 was filed, re-numbered as OP No. 636/2000, which is the subject matter of the present proceedings.

6. The record shows that respondent had made a complaint on 28.01.1992 to the Prime Minister’s Office and the DGP, Andra Pradesh complaining that the appellant has contracted two more marriages on which a preliminary enquiry was conducted and departmental proceedings were initiated. The appellant filed OS No. 190/1995 for declaring the matrimonial status of the appellant to having married only the respondent and not one Nirmala and Lalitha @ Srilatha and for injunction to restrain Inspector General of Police from proceeding with the departmental enquiry against the appellant and suit was remitted for fresh consideration by the High Court in appeal.

7. The Family Court, however, exercised jurisdiction in the OP filed for divorce on the ground that the marriage between the parties is irretrievably broken down and that the appellant was directed to pay Rs. 1,25,000/-for maintenance of the respondent and Rs. 1,75,000/-towards maintenance and marriage expenses of their daughter who was living with the respondent.

8. On the appeal being preferred by the respondent before the High Court, the order of the Family Court was set aside, and rightly so, as the ground of irretrievable break down of marriage could not have been availed of as to grant a decree of divorce. This power is only exercisable by this Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India. The present appeal emanates from the said order. This appeal is also pending before this Court for the last 12 years (@ SLP of the year 2010). The appellant is stated to have got married after the decree of divorce was granted by the trial Court. Much water has flowed in more than two decades when for one reason or the other, the reconciliation between the parties has not been possible and is now practically impossible, given the present status of the parties.

9. When we took up the appeal for hearing on 25.11.2021 it was agreed that in view of the marriage already performed by the appellant, the second time and the children therefrom, and the child from the marriage between the parties hereto having already married of with the cooperation of the parties, it would be appropriate for this Court to exercise jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to grant divorce on the ground of irretrievable break down of marriage, something the trial Court did but could not have done and that being the reason for the High Court to interfere