IMPORTANT POINT
Divorce – A dead marriage must be given a decent quietus.

JUDGMENT :

DIPANKAR DATTA, J.

1. This appeal registers a challenge to the judgment and decree dated 4th June, 2020 of the High Court of Judicature at Patna,¹[High Court] in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 501 of 2013. Under challenge before the High Court were (i) judgment and decree dated 4th June, 2013 of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Munger, Bihar, dismissing a petition,²[Title Suit (Matrimonial) No. 1 of 2009] under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 presented by the appellant-wife and (ii) the judgment and decree dated 11th June, 2013 allowing a petition under section 9 of the said Act of the respondent-husband. The High Court dismissed the appeal and, thereby, upheld the impugned judgment and decree of the Family Court.

2. The marriage between the appellant-wife and the respondent-husband was solemnized on 24th April, 1999. They were blessed with a daughter on 7th June, 2001. It is not in dispute that the parties have been living separately for quite some time. According to the appellant-wife, they have been living separately since 2008 while the respondent-husband claims that the separation is since 2012. Be that as it may, admittedly, they have been living separately for at least a little in excess of 12 (twelve) years.

3. Having perused the materials on record and considering the factual situation of separation in excess of 12 (twelve) years, we had put it across to learned senior counsel for the parties as to whether any reunion by way of reconciliation is possible.

4. Ms. Nivedita Nirvikar, learned senior counsel for the appellant-wife ruled out any scope for such reconciliation and insisted for a decree of divorce on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage. According to her, because of the acrimony between the parties, there is nothing left of the marriage.

5. Per contra, Mr. Ashok Kumar Choudhary, learned senior counsel for the respondent-husband submitted, on instructions, that the respondent-husband was more than willing to have resumption of marital relationship particularly having regard to the future of the child of the parties. He contended that the petitioner-wife started showing her true colours once she obtained public employment. The respondent-husband had huge contributions for what the appellant-wife is today (she happens to be a Child Development Project Officer). Not only was she encouraged by him to prepare for securing public employment, the entire expenses for her to live a dignified, fulfilling and meaningful life were borne by him. Conveniently, she repudiated the contribution of the respondent-husband and disowned him after such employment. According to Mr. Choudhary, in light of the socio-economic conditions of the rural area from where the respondent-husband hails, it would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to find a suitable groom for his child. Having regard to the stigma that is attached with a divorce, no respectable family would agree to give in marriage their son with the child of a divorcee. Even otherwise, it has not been demonstrated how the Family Court or the High Court erred in not granting relief to the appellant-wife. Placing reliance on several decisions of this Court, Mr. Choudhary, thus, assiduously urged that this appeal be dismissed.

6. We heard submission of Ms. Nirvikar that the child of the parties has since grown up and she is an adult, pursuing her medical course in Puducherry. According to Ms. Nirvikar, the respondent-husband never cared for his child and all expenses for her up-bringing as well as education have been borne by the appellant-wife. That apart, she was an aspirant for public employment even before her marriage. With great deal of personal effort and without anyone’s assistance she could secure public employment. Submissions to the contrary are entirely wrong.

7. We heard rival contentions of the parties with patience and considering that the respondent-husband was overly concerned about his child’s future, particularly about her married