Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Smt. Sulekha vs Pradeep Pachouri on 18 August, 2022
Bench: Uday Umesh Lalit, S. Ravindra Bhat
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2022
(@ out of SLP (CIVIL) No. 5726/2021)
SMT. SULEKHA Appellant(s)
VERSUS
PRADEEP PACHOURI Respondent(s)
O R D E R
Leave granted.
This appeal challenges the judgment and order dated 04.03.2020 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Gwalior in First Appeal No.129/2008.
The instant proceedings arise out of Case No. 28/2007(HMA) instituted in the Court of District Judge, Bhind, Madhya Pradesh by the respondent-husband seeking dissolution of marriage on the grounds of cruelty and desertion under the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act. The Trial Court by its judgment and order dated 28.02.2008 rejected the submissions advanced on behalf of the respondent and dismissed said case.
The respondent carried the matter further by filing First Appeal NO.129 of 2008 in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh.
When the Appeal was taken up for hearing, none had appeared Signature Not Verified on behalf of the appellant. However, by its order Digitally signed by NEETU KHAJURIA dated 30.10.2014, the High Court allowed the Appeal and passed Date: 2022.08.24 18:10:07 IST Reason:
decree for dissolution of marriage. During the course of its judgment, the High Court observed as under:-2
“… …Under such circumstances, it cannot be said that plaintiff suffered cruelty at the end of defendant and defendant has left her in-laws place on her own.
Heard the counsel for the parties and perused the record.
Undisputedly, plaintiff and defendant are living separately from 3/6/2004. More than 10 years period has passed by. There are allegation and counter allegations against each other. With this long passage of time love is lost and emotions are dried between the two. A pious institution of marriage inculcates feeling of companionship and togetherness between husband and wife. Mutual trust and faith is the sole of matrimonial life. Stray incidences of disputes and differences between the two are but natural as two different personalities live together by virtue of nuptial knots and are part of life but at the same time, fact of separation from each other for long period of time extinguishes feeling of oneness. Though this Court inquired about the possibility of reconciliation between the two and counsel for parties agreed for mediation but as per order- sheet dated 19/12/2011, mediation failed. Counsel also informed that there is no possibility for both of them to live together. Under such circumstances, to draw final curtain, this Court is of the opinion that if plaintiff and defendant cannot live as friends, they should part away as friends. Under such facts and circumstances, this appeal is disposed of. Plaintiff is granted decree of divorce under Section 13 and 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act. However, to do complete justice between the parties, under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act in light of judgment rendered by Hon. Supreme Court in the matter of Medha Ashok Panchabhai vs. Ashok Atmaram Panchabahi (2010) 15 SCC 558, we grant permanent alimony of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rs. Five Lacs only) as full and final payment to the defendant-wife by the plaintiff-husband in five equal instalment in a span of one year.” The appellant, being aggrieved, approached this Court by 3 filing Civil Appeal No. 3924 of 2019. This Court set aside the ex-parte decree for divorce passed by the High Court and restored the First Appeal to the file of the High Court to be disposed of afresh after hearing the parties. It was also directed that the amount of Rs.5,00,000/- which was made over the Appellant in terms of the Order dated 12.04.2019 passed by the High Court would not be refunded or re-transferred but would abide by the final orders to be passed by the High Court in the restored First Appeal.
After such remand, the matter was taken-up by the High Court and the Appeal was allowed by the High Court by its judgment and order presently under challenge. It was observed by the High Court:-
“...Under such circumstances, it cannot be said that plaintiff suffered cruelty at the end of defendant and defendant has left her in-laws place on her own.
8. On perusal of record, it is apparent that the plaintiff and defendant are living separately from 3.6.2004, i.e., for more than 10 years. Due to desertion and counter allegations, with passage of time, love and emotions are dried. A pious institution of marriage inculcates feeling of companionship and togetherness between husband and wife. Mutual trust and faith is the sole of matrimonial life. Stray incidences of disputes and differences between the two are but natural as two different personalities live together by virtue of nuptial knots and are part of life but at the same time, fact of separation from each other for long period of time extinguishes feeling of oneness.
9. Taking into account the aforesaid aspects and finding that mediation also failed and there 4 was no possibility for both of them to live together, this Court vide order dated 30.10.2014 disposed of the first appeal and granted decree of divorce under Section 13 and 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act and also granted permanent alimony of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lacs only) as full and final payment to the defendant-wife by the plaintiff-husband in five equal installment ts in a span of one year.
10. As per order dated 12th April, 2019 passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court, it is reported that a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- as permanent alimony had already been made over by the appellant-husband to the respondent-wife and the same is kept with the wife.” In this Appeal, challenging the correctness of decision of the High Court, we have heard Mr. Purushottam Sharma Tripathi, learned advocate for the appellant and Mr. Shishir Kumar Saxena, learned advocate for the respondent.
According to Mr. Tripathi, the matter was not considered by the High Court on merits. The material on record with respect to two grounds on the basis of which decree for dissolution was sought was not considered by the High Court at all and the High Court purely went by the fact that the parties had parted company since June, 2004 and that there was no possibility for both of them to live together.
Mr. Shishir Kumar Saxena, learned Advocate for the respondent attempted to submit that the decree for dissolution was rightly granted by the High Court and that no interference was called for.
Having considered the rival submissions and the material 5 on record, in our view, none of the grounds on the basis of which decree for dissolution was sought by respondent-husband, was made out. We, therefore, allow this appeal, set aside the order passed by the High Court and restore the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court.
It must be observed here that in terms of the directions issued by the High Court, a sum of Rs.5 lakhs has already been made over to the appellant-wife.
Considering the quantum of maintenance that was awarded to her and the fact that she has been living separately from her husband for last several years, in our view, said sum of Rs.5 lakhs can be taken and adjusted towards the maintenance payable to the appellant-wife. Ordered accordingly. Mr. Tripathi, learned counsel appearing for appellant- wife has fairly submitted that since the amount of Rs. 5 lakhs has been made over to her, the appellant wife shall not make further any claim towards maintenance. This appeal thus stands allowed in aforesaid terms. No costs.
………………………………………………………J. (UDAY UMESH LALIT) ………………………………………………………J. (S. RAVINDRA BHAT) New Delhi, August 18, 2022.
6
ITEM NO.26 COURT NO.2 SECTION IV-C
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 5726/2021
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 04-03-2020 in FA No. 129/2008 passed by the High Court Of M.P. At Gwalior) SMT. SULEKHA Petitioner(s) VERSUS PRADEEP PACHOURI Respondent(s) (IA No.50696/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No.50693/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. ) Date : 18-08-2022 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UDAY UMESH LALIT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT For Petitioner(s) Mr. Purushottam Sharma Tripathi, AOR Mr. Mukesh Kumar Singh, Adv. Ms. Vani Vyas, Adv.
Mr. Ravi Chandra Prakash, Adv. Mr. Amit, Adv.
Mr. Vipin Sandu, Adv.
Mr. Abhishek Tripathi, Adv. Ms. Sujata K. Mani, Adv.
Ms. Kajal Rani. Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Shishir Kumar Saxena, Adv.
Mr. R.N. Pareek, Adv.
Mr. Brijendra Singh, Adv. Ms. Payal Swarup, Adv.
Mr. Praveena Swarup, AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Leave granted.
The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed order.
Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.
(INDU MARWAH) (VIRENDER SINGH) COURT MASTER (SH) BRANCH OFFICER
(SIGNED ORDER IS PLACED ON THE FILE)