JUDGMENT 1. - A short lived married life, and a long standing dispute between the parties have compelled the appellant-wife to challenge the judgment and decree dated 5.8.03 passed by the District Judge, Sikar whereby the learned Judge has dismissed the divorce petition filed by the appellant under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (henceforth to be referred to as 'the Act', in short). 2. The brief facts of the case are that on 31.10. 98 the appellant-wife and the respondent-husband were married according to the Hindu rites and customs. However, immediately after the marriage, the husband and his family demanded that the wife should bring Rs. 1 lac as the husband had to be sent abroad for seeking out a living. Since the appellant's parents were unable to meet the said demand, she was brutally assaulted. According to the appellant on 6.10.99, the respondent poured kerosene on her and tried to burn her. Because of the threat on her life, she had no option but to leave the matrimonial home. Eventually, she filed a case for divorce on the ground of cruelty before the District Court. 3. On the other hand, the respondent-husband denied the averments and claimed that the appellant was brought up in Jaipur. Therefore, she could not adjust herself in the rural atmosphere. Thus, differences had arisen due to psychological in adaptability of the appellant. In order to support her case the appellant examined herself as A.W. 1 and examined two more witnesses. In order to support his case the respondent examined four witnesses including himself. After hearing both the parties, vide judgment dated 5.8.03 the learned Judge dismissed the petition for divorce. Hence this appeal before this Court. 4. In order to explore the possibility of reconciliation between the parties vide order dated 14.7.06 this Court had directed both the parties to be present before the Court. However on 30.7.06 neither of the parties appeared, therefore, they were directed to appear before this Court on 15.9.06. On 15.9.06 both the parties were present in person. This court had an occasion to discuss the possibility of reconciliation with them. However, the appellant was convinced that she does not wish to return to her matrimonial home as her life is in danger. On 15.9.06 both the parties were present in person. This court had an occasion to discuss the possibility of reconciliation with them. However, the appellant was convinced that she does not wish to return to her matrimonial home as her life is in danger. She even went to the extent of stating that even if no permanent alimony is given to her, she would not be aggrieved by that. But at all cost, she wanted a divorce as she felt unsafe with her husband and his family members. Similarly respondent was not too keen in taking the wife back with him as the couple had lived separately for over last three years. Therefore, with the consent of the parties and their counsels, this case is being decided by this order. 5. The disputes between the husband and the wife give rise not only to litigation, but also to social disharmony. More than legal litigation, such problems are social problems which require sensitivity on the part of the court. In the case of A. Jayachandra v. Aneel kaur ( (2005) 2 SCC 22 ) , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held " A too technical and hypersensitive approach would be counterproductive to the institution of marriage. The courts do not have to deal with the ideal husbands and ideal wives. It has to deal with a particular man and woman before it. The ideal couple or a mere ideal one will probably have no occasion to go to Matrimonial Court". In the case of Naveen Kohli v. Neelu Kohli ( (2006) 4 SCC 538 ), the Hon'ble Supreme court pointed out that "the High Court ought to have considered that a human problem can be properly resolved by adopting a human approach". It further held that "Undoubtedly, it is the obligation of the court and all concerned that the marriage status should, as far as possible, as long as possible and whenever possible, be maintained, but when the marriage is totally dead, in that event, nothing is gained by trying to keep the parties tied forever to a marriage which in fact has ceased to exist. In the instant case, there has been total disappearance of emotional substratum in the marriage. In the instant case, there has been total disappearance of emotional substratum in the marriage. Preservation of such a marriage is totally unworkable which has ceased to be effective and would be greater source of misery for the parties not to grant a decree of divorce would be disastrous for the parties. Otherwise, there may be a ray of hope for the parties that after a passage of time (after obtaining a decree of divorce) the parties may psychologically and emotionally settle down and start a new chapter in life". 6. In the present case, while the appellant is adamant that she does not wish to go back to the matrimonial home where her life is threatened, the respondent is not keen in resuming the marriage. The parties have been staying away from each other for the last few years. Both the parties would like to close this chapter and to restart their life all over again. Thus, it is impossible to resurrect the dead marriage between the parties. It would be in the interest of justice to permit the parties to re-kindle their lives separately. 7. Therefore, we quash and set aside the judgment and decree dated 5.8.03 and direct that the marriage stands dissolved between the appellant and the respondent and a decree to the same effect shall be prepared by this court. There shall be no order as to costs.Appeal allowed. *******