JUDGMENT:

(Per Hon(cid:146)ble Dr. Justice Chillakur Sumalatha)

Disputing the validity of the order that is rendered by the Family Court, Ranga Reddy District, in O.P.No. 1185 of 2008 dated 29.08.2011, the petitioner therein has preferred the present appeal.

2. Heard Sri M.Ramakanth, learned counsel, who argued on behalf Sri M.S.N.Prasad, learned counsel on record for the appellant. Also heard Ms.R.Madhavi Latha, learned counsel, who argued on behalf of Sri Nimmagadda Satyanarayana, learned counsel on record for the respondent.

3. The appellant-husband moved an application before the Family Court, Ranga Reddy District, for grant of divorce basing on two grounds. The first ground is that the respondent-wife deserted him and the second ground is that the respondent-wife is of unsound mind. Respondent-wife, who made her appearance, denied both those grounds. The Family Court, Ranga Reddy District, which dealt with the subject matter, rendered decision on 29.08.2011 by subjecting the evidence of PWs 1 to 3, RW-1 and Exs.P-1 and P-2 to scrutiny and holding that the appellant-husband is not entitled for a decree of divorce as prayed for. Aggrieved by the findings given by the Family Court, the present appeal is preferred.

4. Making his submission, learned counsel for the appellant contended that the appellant-husband was never taken care of by the respondent-wife and she at all time dance to the tunes of her parents. Learned counsel stated that the respondent-wife never visited the parents of the appellant that itself goes to show her attitude. Learned counsel submitted that at all time, the respondent-wife forced the appellant to live with her parents and the appellant-husband with an intention to maintain the union, most of the time resided at his in-laws(cid:146) place i.e. with the parents of the respondent-wife. Learned counsel further submitted that the respondent-wife totally neglected the appellant-husband and did not even inform while she went abroad. Learned counsel contended that after she returned, she suffered with serious mental disorder. Learned counsel also stated that ultimately the appellant-husband could not continue his marital life with the respondent-wife and therefore, came out and filed an application for grant of divorce, but without considering the grounds urged, the Judge of the Family Court dismissed the said application.

5. Further submission is made by the learned counsel for the appellant that the marriage is irretrievably broken down and the parties are residing separately since more than twelve years and therefore, nothing survives, but even the said fact was not taken into consideration by the Family Court. Also stating that where there is continuous separation and where the matrimonial life went beyond repair, it is desirable to dissolve the marriage, learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in a case of Chintala Srinivasa Rao vs. Chintala Sridevi in F.C.A.No.147 of 2009 (decided on 13.10.2022), wherein this Court at Para Nos.12 to 14 held as follows:

(cid:147)12. In Naveen Kohli Vs. Neelu Kohli1, a three-Judge Bench of the Hon(cid:146)ble Apex Court observed as follows:

(cid:147)Once the marriage has broken down beyond repair, it would be unrealistic for the law not to take notice of that fact, and it would be harmful to society and injurious to the interests of the parties. Where there has been a long period of continuous separation, it may fairly be surmised that the matrimonial bond is beyond repair. The marriage becomes a fiction, though supported by a legal tie. By refusing to sever that tie the law in such cases does not serve the sanctity of marriage; on the contrary, it shows scant regard for the feelings and emotions of the parties.(cid:148)

13. The Hon(cid:146)ble Apex Court, in a catena of judgments, has exercised its inherent powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India for dissolution of a marriage where the Court finds that the