S.K. Singh and Pankaj Mithal, JJ.@mdashThis is an appeal u/s 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 against the judgment, order and decree of divorce dated 30.9.2004, passed by the Family Court, Azamgarh in Original Suit No. 283 of 1999, Mithlesh Kumar Singh v. Smt. Meena Singh.
2. The plaintiff-respondent instituted a suit for divorce against his wife defendant-appellant u/s 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1956 on the ground of mental cruelty, desertion and refusal to discharge the matrimonial obligations. On due contest the suit was decreed and it was recorded that both the parties are living separately for many years and cannot live together as husband and wife.
3. The appeal was referred to the Mediation and Conciliation Centre attached to the High Court vide order dated 1.10.2007 for the purposes of exploring the possibility of bringing about some reconciliation between the parties. However, the Mediation and Conciliation Centre after extensive deliberation with the parties submitted a report that reconciliation is not possible. It is on the failure of the reconciliation, the appeal has come up for hearing.
4. Heard Sri B.P. Singh, learned Counsel for the appellant and Sri R.P. Singh Parihar, learned Counsel for the respondent.
5. Admittedly, the parties got married in the year 1982 and they are living separately at least since 1991, earlier also their relations were not very cordial and for all practical purposes they were living separately, though through the wedlock a son Amar Singh (Anupam) was born to them on 30.11.1989.
6. Learned Counsel for the parties fairly conceded that it is virtually impossible for the parties to live together and therefore, the decree of divorce is the only recourse left. However, learned Counsel for the appellant contended that the appellant may be granted permanent alimony and at present she is getting Rs. 1,500 per month as interim maintenance in proceedings u/s 125, Cr. P.C. in Case No. 336 of 2000, Meena v. Mithlesh. Learned Counsel for the respondent has not disputed the above fact and has left it open for the Court to fix reasonable amount of alimony.
7. In view of the submissions made by the parties and the facts and circumstances of the case it would be a futile exercise to go into the merits of the appeal minutely when admittedly the marriage has broken down and it is not possible for the parties to live together. No doubt the doors of cruelty cannot be open too wide, but as matrimonial matters are matters of human and emotional relationship which demands mutual trust, respect, love and affection and adjustment between the spouses, the continuation of unworkable marriages would only result in adding miseries to life of both.
8. In the instant case, the record is clear that the parties are living separately and are not discharging their matrimonial obligations continuously for the last over 18 years and there is no possibility of any reconciliation. Thus, the conclusion is inevitable that the marriage has broken down completely and irretrievably and as such there is no point in compelling them to live together and to make their life more miserable.
9. In Sandhya Rani v. Kalyan Ram Narayan 1994 (Suppl) 2 SCC 588, the Apex Court while reiterating the stand that there is no justification for continuing with the marriage which has broken down irretrievably took the view that since the parties are living separately for last more than three years there is no doubt in taking the stand that the marriage between the parties has broken down irretrievably and therefore, the Court has no option but to grant decree of divorce.
10. In the case of
11. In view of the aforesaid decisions, to end the miseries of the parties and to allow them to henceforth live a happy and peaceful life by bringing to an end the litigation appear to be a more sound, reasonable and practical decision.
The parties are living separately for many years and there is no possibility of their uniting. Thus, for all practical purposes the marriage is completely dead. In view of the above and the allegations/counter allegations levelled against each other with regard to their character the element of cruelty on part of both of them is also inherent. The Apex Court in the case of Naveen Kohli v. Neelu Kohli JT 2006 (1) SC 491 : 2006 (2) AWC 1057 (SC), suggested that the break down of marriage completely be added as one of the grounds for obtaining divorce. Subsequently, the Apex Court in
12. The husband, plaintiff-respondent is a constable in U.P. Police since 1980. The wife, defendant-appellant has no independent income. Therefore, so far as the permanent alimony is concerned though there is no application in writing, but treating the oral prayer made in this regard to be an application it would be in the interest of justice to grant a lump sum alimony of Rs. 2,25,000 to the appellant which would be sufficient enough to draw an interest of Rs. 1,500 per month amount @ 8% per annum which would be equivalent to the interim maintenance she is getting at present which is a bare minimum for her to make her two ends meet. This would at least save her to live a life of a beggar. She can certainly stand up on her own and improve her stand and of life and to live a more decent life.
13. Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed and the decree of divorce dated 30.9.2004 passed by the family court in Original Suit No. 283 of 1999, Mithlesh Kumar Singh v. Smt. Meena Singh, is confirmed with the modification and further direction that the respondent shall pay a lump sum permanent alimony of Rs. 2,25,000 to the appellant within a period of three months from today.
Costs upon the parties.
