IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.6988 OF 2018
(Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.19420 of 2017)
Manju Kumari Singh @ Smt. Manju Singh ….Appellant(s)
Avinash Kumar Singh ….Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. This seductiveness is filed by a mother opposite a final visualisation and sequence antiquated 28.2.2017 upheld by a High Court of Jharkhand during Ranchi in F.A. No. 51 of 2004 whereby a High Court discharged a seductiveness and endorsed a visualisation antiquated 23.12.2002 upheld by a Principal Judge, Family Court, Singhbhum East during Jamshedpur in Matrimonial Suit No. 40 of 2001 by that a matrimony between a appellant-wife and a respondent-husband was dissolved.
3. Few contribution need to be mentioned infra to conclude a brief emanate endangered in a appeal.
4. The appellant is a mother given a respondent is a husband. The appellant and a respondent were married on 16.2.1997. The appellant is portion as a Teacher given a respondent is a practicing Advocate. The integrate was sanctified with a daughter in 1998 and she has been vital with a appellant given birth. As on this date, a daughter is study and is of marriageable age. Unfortunately, due to several reasons, their married life was not considerate shortly after a marriage, that eventually led to filing of divorce petition (Matrimonial Suit No.40/358 of 2001) by a respondent (husband) in a year 2001 opposite a appellant (wife) in a Family Court, Singhbhum East, Jamshedpur.
5. The respondent sought divorce inter alia on a belligerent of cruelty and abandonment opposite a appellant. The appellant denied a allegations of cruelty/desertion and contested a fit by fasten issues.
6. By sequence antiquated 23.12.2002, a Family Judge dissolved a matrimony between a appellant-wife and a respondent-husband on a belligerent that a claim of cruelty and abandonment opposite a appellant was valid and a fit filed by a respondent-husband for a retraction of matrimony was decreed.
7. The appellant felt aggrieved, filed First Appeal (51 of 2004) before a High Court of Jharkhand during Ranchi. By sequence antiquated 24.9.2008, a High Court endorsed a sequence upheld by a Family Judge.
8. Challenging a pronounced order, a appellant-wife filed an seductiveness before this Court. vide sequence antiquated 9.1.2015, this Court remanded a matter to a High Court for uninformed hearing. Against a pronounced order, a respondent-husband filed a examination petition, that was discharged vide this Court’s sequence antiquated 14.7.2015.
9. After remanding, a High Court again listened a matter. By impugned order, a High Court discharged a appellant’s seductiveness and endorsed a sequence of a Family Judge and, in consequence, authorised a respondent’s divorce petition by extenuation a proceed of divorce in his foster on a belligerent of desertion. It is opposite this sequence of a High Court, a mother (appellant herein) felt depressed and filed a benefaction seductiveness by proceed of special leave in this Court.
10. We have listened a schooled Counsel for a parties, respondent-in-person and perused a record of a case.
11. It is not in brawl that a parties have been vital alone for a final some-more than a decade. All attempts of allotment by intervention have failed. It is, therefore, transparent that there is positively no possibility of both vital together to continue their marital life.
12. In Naveen Kohli v. Neelu Kohli, 128 (2006) DLT 360 (SC)=III (2006) SLT 43=I (2006) DMC 489 (SC)=II (2006) CLT 100 (SC)=(2006) 4 SCC 558, a father had filed petition seeking divorce on a belligerent of cruelty on a partial of wife. While a matter was tentative in a Trial Court, efforts were done for gentle allotment though though any success. Finding that there was no cordiality left between a parties to live together, a Trial Court systematic retraction of matrimony and destined a father to deposition Rs.5 lakhs towards permanent upkeep of a wife. The seductiveness during a instance of a mother carrying been allowed, a father approached this Court by filing an appeal. The observations of this Court in paragraphs 86 and 90 are applicable for a functions and a same are quoted hereunder:
“86. In perspective of a fact that a parties have been vital alone for some-more than 10 years and a really vast series of aforementioned rapist and polite record have been instituted by a respondent opposite a appellant and some record have been instituted by a appellant opposite a respondent, a matrimonial bond between a parties is over repair. A matrimony between a parties is usually in name. The matrimony has been wrecked over a wish of salvage, open seductiveness and seductiveness of all endangered lies in a approval of a fact and to announce gone de jure what is already gone de facto. To keep a sham is apparently gainful to filth and potentially some-more unjust to a open seductiveness than a retraction of a matrimony bond.
90. Consequently, we set aside a impugned visualisation of a High Court and proceed that a matrimony between a parties should be dissolved according to a supplies of a Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. In a unusual contribution and resources of a case, to solve a problem in a seductiveness of all concerned, while dissolving a matrimony between a parties, we proceed a appellant to compensate Rs. 25,00,000 (Rupees twenty-five lakhs) to a respondent towards permanent upkeep to be paid within 8 weeks. This volume would embody Rs 5,00,000 (Rupees 5 lakhs with interest) deposited by a appellant on a instruction of a hearing Court. The respondent would be during autocracy to repel this volume with interest. Therefore, now a appellant would compensate usually Rs 20,00,000 (Rupees twenty lakhs) to a respondent within a stipulated period. In box a appellant fails to compensate a volume as indicated above within a stipulated period, a instruction given by us would be of no relief and a seductiveness shall mount dismissed. In awarding permanent upkeep we have taken into care a financial station of a appellant.”
13. In Sanghamitra Ghosh v. Kajal Kumar Ghosh, we (2007) DMC 105 (SC)=IX (2006) SLT 681=(2007) 2 SCC 220, it was celebrated in paragraphs 18, 19, 20 and 21 as under:
“18. In a present case, we are entirely assured that a matrimony between a parties has irretrievably damaged down since of disfavour of temperament. In fact there has been sum disappearance of romantic substratum in a marriage. The matrimonial bond between a parties is over repair. A matrimony between a parties is usually in name. The matrimony has been wrecked over a wish of salvage, therefore, a open seductiveness and seductiveness of all endangered lies in a approval of a fact and to announce gone de jure what is already gone de facto as celebrated in Naveen Kohli case(2006) 4 SCC 558.
19. In perspective of rare contribution and resources of this case, we cruise it suitable to practice a office of this Court underneath Article 142 of a Constitution.
20. In sequence to safeguard that a parties might live peacefully in future, it has turn needed that all a cases tentative between a parties are destined to be likely of. According to a deliberate view, unless all a tentative cases are likely of and we put a quietus to lawsuit between a parties, it is doubtful that they would live happily and peacefully in future. In a view, this will not usually assistance a parties, though it would be gainful in a seductiveness of a teenager son of a parties.
21. On care of a assemblage of a contribution and resources of a case, we hold it suitable to pass a sequence in a following terms:
(a)the parties are destined to particularly belong to a terms of concede filed before this Court and also a orders and directions upheld by this Court;
(b)we proceed that a cases tentative between a parties, as enumerated in a preceding paragraphs, are likely of in perspective of a allotment between a parties; and
(c)all tentative cases outset out of a matrimonial record including a box of compensation of conjugal rights and safekeeping box between a parties shall mount likely of and consigned to a annals in a particular Courts on being changed by possibly of a parties by providing a duplicate of this order, that has staid all those disputes in terms of a settlement.”
14. In a deliberate view, in sequence to safeguard that a parties might live peacefully in destiny and their daughter would be staid scrupulously in her life, a quietus contingency be given to all litigations between a parties. Indeed both a schooled Counsel appearing for a parties too concluded for this. Such an approach, in a view, would be unchanging with a proceed adopted by this Court in a aforesaid matters. Consistent with a extended accord arrived during between a parties, we cruise it only and correct to dispose of a seductiveness with a following directions:
(i)The respondent-husband will compensate a sum sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- (ten lakhs) in dual instalments towards permanent subsistence and upkeep to a appellant and daughter.
(ii)First complement of Rs. 5,00,000/- would be paid by a respondent- father to a daughter by proceed of a Demand Draft drawn in foster of his daughter within 3 months from a date of this order.
(iii)Second complement of Rs. 5,00,000/- would be paid by a respondent-husband to a daughter by proceed of a Demand Draft drawn in foster of his daughter within 4 months from a date of remuneration of initial instalment.
(iv)All allegations done in tentative cases outset out of a matrimonial record including a one out of that this seductiveness arises are expunged. All record tentative in several Courts, if any, shall mount likely of accordingly.
15. In perspective of a rare contribution and resources of this case, we also cruise it suitable to practice a energy underneath Article 142 of a Constitution in sequence to do estimable probity to a parties to this seductiveness and accordingly announce retraction of their matrimony theme to accomplishment of a aforesaid conditions.
16. With a aforesaid directions, a seductiveness stands accordingly likely of.
Appeal likely of.