Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Col. Pawan Kumar Sharma (Retd) vs Smt. Bhavan Sharma on 30 November, 2018
Bench: N.V. Ramana, Mohan M. Shantanagoudar
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (C) NOS.1733717338 OF 2017
WITH
SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (C) NO.32032 OF 2018
(DIARY NO. 41046 OF 2018)
COL. PAWAN KUMAR SHARMA (RETD) PETITIONER
VERSUS
SMT. BHAVAN SHARMA RESPONDENT
O R D E R
Delay of 645 days in filing SLP (C) Diary No. 41046 of 2018 is
condoned.
2. The judgment dated 25.10.2016 passed by the High Court of
Himachal Pradesh, Shimla, in FAO No. 420 of 2009 is called in
question by Col. Pawan Kumar Sharma, husband of respondent
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
SATISH KUMAR YADAV
Date: 2018.12.03
17:03:24 IST
Reason:
herein. By the impugned judgment, the High Court allowed the
1
appeal filed by the petitioner herein (i.e. Pawan Kumar Sharma) by
concluding that the marital ties of the petitioner and the respondent
(Smt. Bhavan Sharma) are broken down irretrievably. Consequently,
the High Court has ordered that the marriage between the petitioner
and the respondent be dissolved subject to petitioner paying
permanent alimony to the respondent to the extent of 35% of the
pensionary benefits every month. It is also ordered by the High
Court that the petitioner was directed to make fixed deposits of Rs.
5,00,000/ each in favour of two daughters (born out of the
wedlock) for the expenses of their marriage.
The Trial Court had rejected the divorce petition filed by the
petitioner herein which is set aside by the impugned judgment as
mentioned supra.
3. The husband has filed SLP (C) Nos.1733717338 of 2017
seeking setting aside the direction issued by the High Court
regarding payment of permanent alimony whereas Smt. Bhavan
Sharma/wife has filed Diary No. 41046 of 2018 for setting aside the
judgment an order passed by the High Court dissolving the
marriage. Both the appeals are heard together.
2
4. Having heard the learned advocates on both the sides and
having perusal of records we find that the High Court is justified in
concluding that the marriage between the Col. Pawan Kumar
Sharma, petitioner and Smt. Bhavan Sharma, respondent herein is
irretrievably broken down. Not only the adequate reasons are
assigned by the High Court to set aside the judgment of the Trial
Court but also to grant decree of dissolution of marriage. The
records disclose that there is prolonged separation of the couple
since 1996 till this day. Though number of efforts were made to
continue marital relationships meaningfully by the elders and
friends of the parties, no purpose was served. Even on the demise of
close relatives of Mr. Pawan Kumar Sharma, which happened in the
year 1999 and 2001 neither his wife nor his family members visited
the place of Pawan Kumar Sharma at least to condole the demise.
Even when the demise of Pawan Kumar’s mother happened on
15.09.2006, his wife Smt. Bhavan Sharma or her family members
did not even condole the such sad demise.
5. These apart and from other facts which we would not want to
reiterate in detail once again, since, all such facts are evaluated by
the High Court in a proper manner, we conclude that the judgment
3
of the High Court regarding dissolution of the marriage needs to be
upheld.
6. Ordered accordingly.
7. However, the payment of permanent alimony from out of the
pension of Pawan Kumar Sharma and payment made by him
towards the expenses of his daughters’ marriage need to be modified
to a certain extent. We have kept in mind the properties held by
both the parties as well as the pension both the parties are getting
after the retirement. Accordingly, the following order is made in
respect of permanent alimony as well as the marriage expenses:
(a) The petitionerhusband is directed to pay permanent alimony to
the respondentwife to the extent of 25% of his pensionary benefits
instead of 35% as directed by the High Court in the impugned
order. The same shall be given to the respondentwife from this
month onwards.
(b) The petitionerhusband is directed to prepare FDRs in the
name of his daughters’ each in a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/ (Rupees
ten lacs) towards the expenses of their marriage within one month
from today instead of Rs.5,00,000/ (Rupees five lacs) as directed by
the High Court and handover the same to the daughters.
4
(c) Arrears of permanent alimony, if any, shall be paid by the
petitionerhusband to the respondentwife within a period of six
months from today.
8. The impugned judgment of the High Court dated 25.10.2016 is
modified to the aforesaid extent and the special leave petitions shall
stand disposed of accordingly.
..………………………………..…….J.
[N.V. RAMANA]
..……………………………………….J.
[MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR]
NEW DELHI;
November 30, 2018.
5
ITEM NO.31 COURT NO.5 SECTION XIV
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).17337-17338/2017
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 25-10-2016
and 06-01-2017 in FAO No.420/2009 and RP No.116/2016 passed by the
High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla)
COL. PAWAN KUMAR SHARMA (RETD) Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
SMT. BHAVAN SHARMA Respondent(s)
WITH
Diary No(s).41046/2018 (XIV)
(FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.161080/2018-CONDONATION OF DELAY
IN FILING and IA No.161083/2018-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE
IMPUGNED JUDGMENT)
Date : 30-11-2018 These petitions were called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR
For Petitioner(s) Mr.Manish Paliwal, Adv.
In SLP(C)Nos. Mr.Vikas Kumar, Adv.
17337-17338/17 Mr.Dheeraj Singh, Adv.
Mr.Ashutosh Sharma, Adv.
Ms.Aliya Durafshan, Adv.
Mr.Aman Modi, Adv.
For M/S Corporate Legal Partners, AOR
For Respondent(s) Mr.Suryanaryana Singh, Adv.
In SLP(C)17337- Ms.Pragati Neekhra, AOR
17338/17 & for Ms.Kaveri Vats, Adv.
petr.in D.No.
41046/18
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
Delay of 645 days in filing SLP (C) Diary No. 41046 of 2018 is condoned.
6 The impugned judgment of the High Court dated 25.10.2016 is modified to the extent indicated in the signed order and the special leave petitions shall stand disposed of accordingly.
As a sequel to the above, pending interlocutory application stands disposed of.
(SATISH KUMAR YADAV) (RAJ RANI NEGI)
AR-CUM-PS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
(Signed order is placed on the file) 7