NON­REPORTABLE

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)

VERSUS

Avinash Kumar Singh             ….Respondent(s)

                 J U D G M E N T

Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal is filed by the wife against the final

judgment and  order  dated  28.02.2017  passed  by

the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi in F.A. No.

51 of 2004 whereby the High Court dismissed the

1

appeal and affirmed the judgment dated 23.12.2002

passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court,

Singhbhum East at Jamshedpur in Matrimonial

Suit No.40 of 2001 by which the marriage between

the appellant­wife and the respondent­husband was

dissolved.

3. Few facts need to be mentioned infra to

appreciate the short issue involved in the appeal.  

4. The appellant is the wife whereas the

respondent is the husband. The appellant and the

respondent were married on 16.02.1997. The

appellant is serving as a Teacher whereas the

respondent is a  practicing  advocate.   The couple

was blessed with a daughter in 1998 and she has

been living with the appellant since birth.  As on

this date, the daughter is studying and is of

marriageable age.  Unfortunately, due to various

reasons, their married life was not cordial soon after

2

the marriage, which eventually led to filing of

divorce petition (Matrimonial Suit No.40/358 of

2001) by the respondent (husband) in the year 2001

against the appellant (wife) in the Family  Court,

Singhbhum East, Jamshedpur.  

5. The respondent sought divorce inter alia on the

ground of cruelty and desertion against the

appellant.  The  appellant  denied the  allegations  of

cruelty/desertion and contested the suit by joining

issues.  

6. By order dated 23.12.2002, the Family Judge

dissolved  the  marriage  between  the  appellant­wife

and the respondent­husband  on the ground that

the allegation of cruelty and desertion against the

appellant was proved and the suit filed by the

respondent­husband for the dissolution of marriage

was decreed.

3

7. The appellant felt aggrieved, filed First Appeal

(51 of 2004)  before the High Court of Jharkhand at

Ranchi.  By order dated 24.09.2008, the High Court

affirmed the order passed by the Family Judge.

8. Challenging the said order, the appellant­wife

filed an appeal before this Court.  Vide order dated

09.01.2015, this Court remanded the matter to the

High Court for fresh hearing.   Against the said

order, the respondent­husband filed a review

petition, which was dismissed vide this Court’s

order dated 14.07.2015.

9. After remanding, the High Court again heard

the  matter.  By impugned  order, the  High  Court

dismissed the appellant’s  appeal  and affirmed the

order of the Family Judge and, in consequence,

allowed the respondent's divorce petition by

granting  a  decree  of  divorce in  his favour  on  the

ground of desertion. It is against this order of the

4

High Court, the wife (appellant herein) felt aggrieved

and filed the present appeal by way of special leave

in this Court.

10. We have heard the learned counsel for the

parties, respondent­in­person and perused the

record of the case.

11.  It is not in dispute that the parties have been

living separately for the last more than a decade. All

attempts  of reconciliation through mediation have

failed. It is, therefore, clear that there is absolutely

no chance of both living together to continue their

marital life.  

12. In Naveen Kohli v. Neelu Kohli, (2006) 4 SCC

558, the husband had filed petition seeking divorce

on the ground of cruelty on the part of wife.  While

the matter was pending in the Trial Court, efforts

were made for amicable settlement but without any

success.   Finding that there was no cordiality left

5

between the parties to live together, the Trial Court

ordered dissolution of  marriage and directed the

husband to deposit Rs.5 lakhs towards permanent

maintenance of the wife.  The appeal at the instance

of the wife having been allowed, the husband

approached this  Court by filing an appeal.   The

observations of this Court in paragraphs 86 and 90

are relevant for our purposes and the same are

quoted hereunder:

“86. In view of the fact that the parties have been living separately for more than 10 years and a very  large number of aforementioned criminal and civil proceedings have been initiated by the respondent against the appellant and some  proceedings have been initiated by the appellant against the respondent, the  matrimonial bond between the parties is beyond repair. A marriage between the parties is only in name. The marriage has been wrecked beyond the hope of salvage, public interest and interest of all concerned lies in the recognition of the fact and to declare defunct de jure what is already defunct  de facto. To keep the sham is obviously conducive to immorality and potentially more prejudicial to the public

6

interest than  a  dissolution  of the  marriage bond.

90. Consequently, we set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court and direct that the marriage between the parties should be dissolved according to the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. In the extraordinary facts and circumstances of the case, to resolve the problem in the interest of all concerned, while dissolving the marriage between the parties, we direct the appellant to pay Rs 25,00,000 (Rupees twenty­five lakhs) to the respondent towards permanent maintenance to be paid within eight weeks. This amount would include Rs 5,00,000 (Rupees five lakhs with interest) deposited by the appellant on the direction of the trial court. The respondent would be at liberty to withdraw this amount with interest. Therefore, now the appellant would pay only Rs  20,00,000 (Rupees twenty lakhs) to the respondent  within the  stipulated  period. In case the appellant fails to pay the amount as indicated above within the stipulated period, the direction given by us would be of no avail and the appeal shall stand dismissed. In awarding permanent  maintenance we have taken into consideration the financial standing of the appellant.”

7

13.  In  Sanghamitra Ghosh  v.  Kajal Kumar

Ghosh,  (2007) 2 SCC 220, it was observed in

paragraphs 18, 19, 20 and 21 as under:  

“18.  In the instant case, we are fully convinced that the marriage between the parties has irretrievably broken down because of incompatibility of temperament. In fact there has been total disappearance of emotional substratum  in the  marriage.  The matrimonial bond between the parties is beyond repair. A marriage between the parties is only in  name.  The  marriage  has been  wrecked beyond the hope of salvage, therefore, the public interest and interest of all  concerned lies in the recognition of the fact and to declare defunct  de jure  what is already defunct  de facto  as observed in Naveen Kohli case(2006) 4 SCC 558.  

19.  In view of peculiar facts and circumstances of this case,  we consider it appropriate to exercise the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 142 of the Constitution.

20.  In order to ensure that the parties may live peacefully in future, it has become imperative that all the cases pending between the parties are directed to be disposed of. According to our considered view, unless all the pending cases are disposed of and we put a quietus to litigation between the parties, it is unlikely that they

8

would live happily and peacefully in future. In our view, this will not only help the parties, but it would be conducive in the interest of the minor son of the parties.

21.  On consideration  of the totality  of the facts and circumstances of the case, we deem it appropriate to pass the order in the following terms: (a) the parties are directed to strictly adhere to the terms of compromise filed before this Court and also the orders and directions passed by this Court; (b) we direct that the cases pending between the parties, as enumerated in the preceding paragraphs, are  disposed of in view  of the settlement between the parties; and (c) all pending cases arising out of the matrimonial  proceedings including  the  case of restitution of conjugal rights and guardianship case between the parties shall stand disposed of and consigned to the records in the respective courts on being moved by either of the parties by providing a copy of this order, which has settled all those disputes in terms of the settlement.”

 14.  In our considered view, in order to ensure that

the parties may live peacefully in future and their

daughter  would  be settled  properly in  her life, a

quietus must be given to all litigations between the

parties. Indeed both the learned counsel appearing

9

for the parties too agreed for this.   Such an

approach, in our view, would be consistent with the

approach  adopted  by this  Court in the aforesaid

matters.   Consistent with the broad consensus

arrived at between the parties, we consider it  just

and proper to dispose of the appeal with the

following directions:­  

(i) The respondent­husband will  pay

a total sum of Rs. 10,00,000/­(ten

lakhs) in two instalments towards

permanent alimony and  maintenance

to the appellant and daughter.

(ii)  First instalment of Rs. 5,00,000/­

would be paid by the respondent­

husband to the daughter by way of a

Demand Draft  drawn in favour of  his

daughter within three months from

the date of this order.

(iii) Second instalment of

Rs.5,00,000/­ would be paid by the

10

respondent­husband to the daughter

by  way  of a  Demand  Draft drawn in

favour of his daughter within four

months  from the date of  payment of

first instalment.  

(iv) All allegations made in pending

cases arising  out of the  matrimonial

proceedings including the  one out  of

which this appeal arises are expunged.

All proceedings pending in various

Courts, if any, shall stand disposed of

accordingly.

15. In view of the peculiar facts and circumstances

of this case, we also consider it appropriate to

exercise our power under Article 142 of the

Constitution in order to do substantial justice to the

parties to this appeal and accordingly declare

dissolution of their marriage subject to fulfillment of

the aforesaid conditions.

11

16. With the aforesaid directions, the appeal

stands accordingly disposed of.   No costs.

      ………...................................J.   [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE]

………...................................J.   [UDAY UMESH LALIT]

New Delhi; July 25, 2018   

12