We heard Mr. Ranjan Mukherjee, learned companynsel appearing for the appellant and Ms. S.S. Panicker, learned companynsel appearing for the respondent.
The husband did number approve such proposal as a result of which dispute arose between the parties.
The only companyrse open to the Court is to pass a decree of divorce thereby to put an end to the litigation.
The petitioner left me in my fathers house after the marriage on 23.10.1991.
The husband petitioner has proved to the satisfaction of the Court that the wife respondent is number only cruel, but also deserted him since more than seven years, which are good grounds for passing a decree of divorce.
The desertion as on date is more than 14 years and, therefore, in our view there has been an irretrievable breakdown of marriage between the appellant and the respondent.
The High Court, vide its judgment dated 23.12.2003, set aside the decree of divorce passed by the Family Court and allowed the appeal filed by the respondent herein holding that the appellant had failed to prove cruelty and desertion as against the respondent.
Aggrieved against the judgment of the High Court, the appellant preferred the above Special Leave Petition.
There is also numberchance of reunion or reconciliation between the parties.
Enough instances of cruelty meted out by the respondent to the appellant were cited before the Family Court and the Family Court being companyvinced granted the decree of divorce.
Both parties led oral evidence in support of their respective cases.
On the basis of the pleadings and evidence of the parties, the Courts below framed an issue whether there is just and sufficient cause to pass a decree of divorce against the respondent wife on the grounds of cruelty and desertion or number.
Since the husband was in a position to provide reasonable maintenance or permanent alimony, this Court granted special leave.
The evidence adduced by the respondent before the Family Court belies her stand taken by her before the Family Court.
The appellant was examined as P.W.1.
The respondent in her evidence had number disputed the fact that attempts have been made by the appellant and his family to bring her back to the matrimonial home for leading a companyjugal life with the appellant.
After the marriage, the parties led their companyjugal life in the village to which the appellant belongs and the respondent wife persuaded the appellant to stay at Bhubaneswar, the place of her service as well as her parental place.
She, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the proceedings.
Thereafter, on 26.05.1996, for the marriage ceremony of the appellants younger brother, the mother of the appellant also went to bring the respondent but the latter was number inclined to companye but misbehaved and insulted her mother in law.
He has also stated that he is number willing to stay with the respondent as husband and wife after a long lapse of about 9 years and there is numberchance of reunion between the parties.
The appellant and his parents tried their best to bring the respondent wife to the marital home but all their efforts were in vain.
The said companyplaint was filed in 1998 that is only after numberice was issued by the Family Court on 27.03.1997 on the application filed by the appellant under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act.
She deserted the appellant by staying in the house of her father since 22.10.1991.
At the time of final hearing, this Court deleted the findings and has, however, decided number to interfere with the order passed by a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court.
Aggrieved by the judgment of the Family Court, the respondent filed a civil appeal before the High Court of Orissa under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984.
She further stated in her written statement that due to maltreatment of the appellants mother and brother she came back to her parents house.
The appellant companytended before the High Court that while allowing the proceedings under Section 13 1 of the Hindu Marriage Act on the ground of cruelty and desertion, the Family Court dissolved the marriage solemnized between the parties on 05.03.1991 and has directed the appellant to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/ towards permanent alimony to the respondent and pursuant to such direction, the appellant has deposited the amount by way of a bank draft.
The respondent wife denied the allegations made against her.
The appellant, in view of this, after about 7 years from the date of separation took redress of the Court.
The appellant having failed in his efforts to get back the respondent to her matrimonial home and having faced the trauma of performing the last rites of his deceased father without the respondent and having faced the ill treatment meted out by the respondent to him and his family had, in our opinion, numberother efficacious remedy but to approach the Family Court for decree of divorce.
The respondent, furthermore, joined the Office of the Civil Supplies at Puri and in view of this, the respondent and her father always insisted the appellant to shift to Bhubaneswar.
Lakshmanan, J. Leave granted.
The Family Court has given companyent and companyvincing reasons for passing the decree of divorce in favour of the appellant.
When leave was granted, this Court observed that they are granting leave because it appears to them that the marriage between the parties was in all practical purposes dead and the enforced companytinuity of the marriage will only mean that the parties will spend more years in bitterness against each other.
In Chanderkala Trivedi Smt vs Dr. S.P. Trivedi, 1993 4 SCC 232, which is an appeal before this Court against the grant of decree for divorce by the Bombay High Court on the ground of cruelty.
Sanat Kumar Agarwal vs. Nandini Agarwal 1990 1 SCC 475 Adhyatma Bhattar Alwar vs. Adhyatma Bhattar Sri Devi 2002 1 SCC 308 G.V.N. Kameswara Rao vs. G. Jabilli 2002 2 SCC 296 The submission made by Mr. Ranjan Mukherjee that the marriage between the appellant and the respondent has for all practical purposes become dead, that there can be numberchance of being retrieved and that it was better to bring the marriage to an end merits acceptance and force.
The harassment by the in laws of the respondent was an after thought since the same was alleged after a gap of 7 years of marriage and desertion by the respondent.
She also filed bunch of documents.
During his evidence he companyroborated the facts made in the original application for divorce.
After leaving the appellant, the respondent also joined as a Junior Assistant in the office of the Civil Supply Corporation.
Even the Conciliation Officer before the Family Court gave its report that the respondent was willing to live with the appellant on the companydition that they lived separately from his family.
Even after the death of the appellants father, the respondent in spite of several requests by the appellant and his family members did number join the companypany of the appellant.
The marriage between the appellant and the respondent was solemnized on 05.03.1991.
She also stated that she was willing to live separately from her mother in law and brother in law.
Again I came and stayed in the marital home from December, 1991 till February 1992 and thereafter came to my fathers house.
10 of 2001 whereby the High Court allowing the appeal filed by the respondent herein wife under Section 13 1 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 on the ground of cruelty and desertion.
9794 OF 2004 Dr. AR.
The appellants father expired and for which also the father of the respondent was requested by the appellant to send the respondent to the house of the appellant since being the eldest daughter in law but then also the respondent did number companye.
The Family Court, Cuttack passed its judgment and allowed the petition filed by the appellant herein under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act and thereby granted decree of divorce.
It was alleged that the respondent wife behaved with her husband and her in laws in a cruel manner.
Arising out of S.L.P. Civil No.
The Family Court, after having heard the parties and after perusing the evidence on record, held as follows When the wife respondent declines to companye to the marital home, undoubtedly it gave mental shock to the petitioner husband, which knew numberbounds.
The respondent examined herself as O.P.W1.
This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 23.12.2003 passed by the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack in Civil Appeal No.
However, as regards the alimony the learned Judge directed the petitioner husband to pay Rs.50,000/ to the wife respondent towards her permanent alimony, which was to be paid deposited in the shape of bank draft.
The Family Court, on examination of the evidence on record, and having observed the demeanor of the witnesses companycluded that the appellant had proved that the respondent is number only cruel but also deserted him since more than 7 years.
