DIPAK MISRA, J.: - Being dissatisfied with and aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 9 - 3 - 2005 passed by the learned Judge of the Family Court, Bhopal in R. C. S. No.386A/2004 whereby the Court below has refused to entertain an application preferred under Section 13 - B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for brevity 'the Act') the appellants have preferred the present appeal.

2. The facts in a nutshell are that the marriage between the appellant No.1 and appellant No.2 was solemnized on 16 - 2 - 2002 at Bhopal. After living for a short span of time together the husband and wife realized that they could not sustain the relationship and the incompatibility had come to such incurable state that it was thought apposite to seek divorce by mutual consent rather than to live together and fight a battle royal which was nothing but a sysiphian endeavour to maintain a show of relationship which actually was not. It was felt that the intervention of the parents of both the parties to cement the relationship became an exercise in futility and all efforts to steer and pave the way for relationship in harmony became ineffectual, and discord and dissention remained in constant continuum.The parties realized that there was no conceivability or any acceptable prospect of arriving at a state of adaptability and accord and under these circumstances they filed a joint application seeking dissolution of marriage and obtainment of a decree by mutual consent on 3 - 9 - 2004. They filed affidavits in support of their application. The family Judge directed the parties to remain personally present on 9 - 3 - 2005 and both of them in categorical, unequivocal terms and in unambiguous manner stated they were living separately from December, 2003 and there was no possibility of living together and hence, decree for mutual divorce should be granted.

3. The learned Family Judge dismissed the application on the bedrock that as per the statement of the appellants before him they were staying separately from December, 2003 and the application preferred under Section 13 - 8 of the Act was presented on 3 - 9 - 2004 before the Court and, therefore, the requisite condition stipulated under Section 13 - 8(1) of the Act was not complied with inasmuch as they were living separately for less than one year. The said judgment is the subject matter of challenge in this appeal.

4. To understand the fact situation on the bedrock and substratum of law we had directed both appellants to remain personally present before us. The matter was taken up in camera. The appellants categorically expressed that they are not in a position to stay together. Affidavits have been filed to pyramid the stance that why and under what circumstances the marriage has gone beyond tolerance latitude and how the bitterness has entered into the marrows of relationship. In the affidavit filed by the wife it has been stated in clear cut terms that there has been no resumption of cohabitation while they were living together and they are not discharging any marital obligation and the marriage between them has broken down irretrievably. It has also been asseverated that there is no cavil relating to maintenance and there is no prospect for any redemption.

5. An affidavit has been filed by the husband wherein it has been unqualifiedly stated that due to serious dispute between the husband and wife they have been staying separately but prior to that there was total cessation of relationship and question of any kind of resuscitation and revival of relationship is in the realm of impossibility.

6. We have heard Mr. Amit Verma, learned counsel for the appellants. It is the proposement of Mr. Verma that though the appellants stated before the Family Judge that they were staying separately for less than one year under certain circumstances, it has to be given a connotative and broader meaning and not a literal one and if the Court is satisfied that the marriage has become irredeem

Click Here to Read the rest of this document