Allahabad High Court
Santosh Kumar Singh vs Smt. Sunita Singh on 13 April, 2017
Author: Devendra Kumar Arora
Bench: Devendra Kumar Arora
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH Court No. - 17 Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 168 of 2013 Appellant :- Santosh Kumar Singh Respondent :- Smt. Sunita Singh Counsel for Appellant :- R B S Rathore Counsel for Respondent :- A.P. Singh,D.K. Singh,Vineet Kumar Gupta Hon'ble Dr. Devendra Kumar Arora,J.
Hon'ble Ravindra Nath Mishra-II,J.
Heard Sri R.B.S. Rathore, learned Counsel for the appellant and Sri D.K. Singh, learned Counsel for the respondent.
The present appeal arises out of the judgement and order dated 23.10.2013 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Lucknow whereby Regular Suit No.707 of 2009 (Santosh Kumar Singh Vs. Smt. Sunita Singh) filed under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for dissolution of marriage has been dismissed.
It has been contended by the Counsel for the appellant that the learned Court below has miscontrued the provisions of Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and also failed to consider the fact that the marriage of the appellant with opposite party has broken down and the parties can no longer live together as husband and wife.
Matrimonial disputes have to be decided by Courts in a pragmatic manner keeping in view the ground realities. For this purpose a host of facts have to be taken into consideration and the most important being whether the marriage can be saved and the husband and wife can live together happily and maintain a proper atmosphere at home for the upbringing of their offspring.
We have been principally impressed by the consideration that 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 summarised 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.
The foundation of a sound marriage is tolerance, adjustment and respecting one another. Tolerance to each other's fault to a certain bearable extent has to be inherent in every marriage. Petty quibbles, trifling differences should not be exaggerated and magnified to destroy what is said to have been made in heaven. All quarrels must be weighed from that point of view in determining what constitutes cruelty in each particular case and as noted above, always keeping in view the physical and mental conditions of the parties, their character and social status. A too technical and hyper-sensitive approach would be counter-productive to the institution of marriage. The Courts do not have to deal with ideal husband and ideal wives. It has to deal with particular man and women before it. The ideal couple or a mere ideal one will probably have no occasion to go to Matrimonial Court.
During the course of the present proceedings, various efforts were made to get the matter resolved between the parties and in pursuance to the order dated 28.03.2017, appellant Sri Santosh Kumar Singh and respondent Smt. Sunita Singh, had appeared before this Court on 10.04.2017. It was stated by both the parties that they cannot live as husband and wife and are ready to resolve their dispute amicably. It was brought to the notice of the Court that the appellant-Santosh Kumar Singh is ready to pay Rs.10 lakhs to the respondent Smt. Sunita Singh as permanent alimony to which respondent is agreeable. In these circumstances, the contesting parties were asked to file an Affidavit in this regard.
Today, appellant Sri Santosh Kumar Singh as well as respondent Smt. Sunita Singh have filed their separate affidavits indicating therein that they have now settled their dispute amicably and the appellant has paid a sum of Rs.10 lakhs through D.D. No. "080994" dated 12.04.2017 as permanent alimony to the respondent Smt. Sunita Singh. The responden- Smt. Sunita Singh has also filed an affidavit indicating the settlement between her and the appellant Sri Santosh Kumar without prejudice to the rights available to her under the law in respect of her daughter, namely, Shanvi Singh.
Following the principle of 'live and let live' and the precedent laid down by the Apex Court in number of cases, it is desirable and expedient in the interest of justice to grant a decree of divorce and allow the the appeal. It may be noted that the draft bearing no. "080994" dated 12.04.2017 has been handed over to the respondent-wife in the presence of learned counsel for the parties.
Before parting, we would like to mention that Sri R.B.S. Rathore, learned Counsel for the appellant urged that the appellant Sri Santosh Kumar Singh be allowed to visit her daughter at least once in a month to which respondent Smt. Sunita Singh has no objection. In these circumstances appellant is allowed visitation rights to meet her daughter on second Sunday of every calendar month or any other day/days as mutually agreed upon by both the appellant (Santosh Kumar Singh) and respondent (Smt. Sunita Singh) on an undertaking that there will no breach of peace. The undertaking shall be filed before the Family Court concerned by the appellant.
Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in aforesaid terms and the impugned judgment dated 23.10.2013 is hereby quashed. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties shall bear their own costs.
Order Date :- 13.4.2017 Rahul/-