JUDGMENT Hon’ble Prakash Krishna, J.—This is yet another unfortunate appeal by husband against judgment and decree dated 25.4.2001 passed by the District Judge, Ghaziabad in petition No. 568 of 1995 (Madras) whereby the petition for divorce filed under Section 13 (1) (i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 has been dismissed. 2. The parties were married on 5th of April, 1990. Both of them belong to families of good status. The husband Brajesh Kumar at the time of marriage was employed as Probationer (I.R.E.S.) in Railways. 3. The wife, on the other hand, is M.A. (Zoology). The father of husband at the time of marriage was working as Deputy Collector and father of the wife was Superintendent Engineer in Irrigation Department. 4. Petition for divorce was filed at Madras (Chennai) initially which was transferred to Ghaziabad by the order of the Apex Court passed in T.A. (C) No. 457 of 1995, Smt. Anjali v. Brajesh Kumar. 5. The aforesaid petition for divorce was filed by the husband on the pleas as available to a party, on the ground of cruelty within the meaning of Section 13 (1) (i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act as amended in the State of U.P. 6. It was pleaded in the divorce petition that after the marriage the husband was posted at various places in southern part of India such as, at Saleem (Tamil Nadu), Podanur, Mangalore, Palghat and Madras. From the very beginning the respondent suffered from severe complexes as she was not well versed in any language except Hindi. She used to neglect to attend household jobs on the pretext that in her parental house servants used to do these jobs. She neglected the petitioner and declined to attend his needs. She also made the petitioner an accused of having adulterous association with a lady Gynecologist to whom she was taken by the petitioner in connection with her treatment as she was pregnant and ultimately, delivered a female child on 27th August, 1991 namely Km. Disha. There was no improvement in the behaviour of respondent even after the birth of Km. Disha. She used to raise hue and cry and create scenes in the house with the result that the petitioner’s parents never came to reside with him at various places of his postings from time to time. Disha. There was no improvement in the behaviour of respondent even after the birth of Km. Disha. She used to raise hue and cry and create scenes in the house with the result that the petitioner’s parents never came to reside with him at various places of his postings from time to time. Lastly, in the month of April, 1994 when the petitioner informed that his parents are coming to reside with him, the respondent pressurized the petitioner to intimate them not to come. However, petitioner’s parents came to his house on 19th April, 1994 and surprisingly, on the same date, at Madras, the place of his posting, the respondent called his brother from Delhi who came without any prior intimation. She refused to cook the food for her in-laws while well attended her brother. He had to arrange for their food from hotels. 7. Ultimately, the respondent left the petitioner and went to her father’s place along with her brother with the promise to return before end of June, 1994. The petitioner on the said promise permitted her to take the child Km. Disha with her. She after going to her father’s place got issued a lawyer’s notice dated 30th May, 1994 to the petitioner which was suitably replied by him. She also sent a copy of notice to the General Manager of the Southern Railway which caused a lot of humiliation to the petitioner in his department. The petitioner was summoned and questioned by superiors in the light of the letter of respondent. It has been further stated that the respondent is very moody and intemperate lady. Her outlook in general and perception on education are narrow and she will not educate the child properly nor would bring up her well. 8. The respondent in her written statement admitted the marriage and the birth of Km. Disha. However, she denied the legations of cruelty and misbehaviour levelled against her. She came forward with a plea that right from the beginning she was not being treated properly at the hands of husband and the husband has neglected her and the daughter as well, right from the very inception. She is an educated lady who fully understands English and had picked up the working knowledge of Tamil and Malyalam languages while residing with the petitioner at different places to discharge her household duties and look after the minor daughter. She is an educated lady who fully understands English and had picked up the working knowledge of Tamil and Malyalam languages while residing with the petitioner at different places to discharge her household duties and look after the minor daughter. She was Secretary of the Southern Railway Women’s Organization at Podanur and was Incharge of its Schools and Hospitals there, active member of Women’s Organization and Incharge of Railway Creche at Palghat. The petitioner, on the other hand, misbehaved with her on several occasions brutally and used to get sadistic pleasure in taunting and hunting the wife. She paid all respects to her in-laws and as a matter of fact, resided with them at their residence in U.P. after marriage for more than a period over one month and took their proper care. The petitioner’s parents did not visit the petitioner at his various places of postings on account of their old age and being unable to understand Southern languages, on their own accord and that is the reason they preferred to stay at their own house at Modinagar and they never came to Palghat, Madras or Mangalore etc. As a matter of fact, the petitioner was not much interested about their visits in order to hide his misdeeds towards the respondent. She always paid due respect to her in-laws. She visited them whenever she visited her parents to pay respects to them. The delivery of the child occurred at Meerut due to the indifferent attitude and misbehaviour of the petitioner. She never fought with the petitioner nor neglected to discharge her duties. It was a matter of coincidence that her brother and her parents in law both reached to Madras in the month of April, 1994 on the same date. 9. The parties led evidence oral and documentary in support of their respective cases. The petitioner examined himself as PW/1 and filed certain documents as documentary evidence. The respondent examined herself as DW/1 and she brought certain letters on record by way of documentary evidence. It may be noted that none of the parties examined their parents or other relatives or anybody else. 10. During the pendency of the proceedings the father of the petitioner expired and the mother was not examined on the ground of her ill health. 11. It may be noted that none of the parties examined their parents or other relatives or anybody else. 10. During the pendency of the proceedings the father of the petitioner expired and the mother was not examined on the ground of her ill health. 11. On the pleadings of the parties the following issues were framed : (1) Whether the wife treated the petitioner with cruelty as alleged? (2) Whether the wife is entitled to get back her “ STRI-DHAN” from the petitioner as alleged? (3) To what relief, if any, is the petitioner entitled? 12. Under Issue No. 1 it was concluded that the respondent had not persistently and repeatedly treated the petitioner with such cruelty as to cause reasonable apprehension in the mind of the petitioner that it will be harmful and injurious for the petitioner to live with the other party. It has been found that the respondent can speak English and Hindi and the allegations to the contrary made by the petitioner, are incorrect. She had been attending all household duties and had taken proper care and paid attention to the petitioner and used to manage the house well. She never objected the visit of her parents in laws and did not treat the petitioner with cruelty. The allegation of the petitioner that the respondent levelled allegation of illicit intimacy with a lady doctor at Podanur is incorrect. The respondent never made any such allegation and on this ground also the petitioner failed to prove that he was treated with cruelty as the said allegation is false. The complaint made by the respondent against the petitioner to his seniors cannot be said to have treated the petitioner with cruelty as these letters were written out of sentiments seeking safety and employment. 13. Challenging the judgment and decree of the Court below, Shri M.K. Gupta, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a case for grant of decree of divorce has been made out as the parties are admittedly living separately since last about 14 years at least. Elaborating the argument it was submitted that the parties have reached to a point of no return and there is total loss of love and affection between them and no useful purpose is going to be served by keeping them bound by marriage tie. Elaborating the argument it was submitted that the parties have reached to a point of no return and there is total loss of love and affection between them and no useful purpose is going to be served by keeping them bound by marriage tie. The petitioner by passage of time has acquired a very senior position in his life and career, and it is desirable that he may be freed from the mental agony of unsuccessful marriage. The learned counsel placed reliance on few judgments of the Apex Court and submits that although irretrievable breakdown of marriage is not a statutory ground for divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, it has been laid down, time and again, that when no useful purpose is going to be served and the marriage is totally unworkable which has ceased to be effective and would be greater source of miseries for the parties, a decree of divorce should be passed by this Court. 14. Shri Ashok Bhatnagar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that it is the petitioner who has been responsible for all the troubles and differences and he should not be permitted to take the advantage of his wrongs or misdeeds. He submits that all the time the respondent was maltreated and manhandled by the petitioner but she quietly accepted the same keeping in view the welfare of minor girl Km. Disha. The parties belong to good families and the allegation that respondent refused to take proper care and pay attention to the petitioner, is totally unfounded. He submits that the petitioner is a greedy person and wants to get rid of the marriage to marry. This fact is further fortified with the fact that during the course of divorce proceeding a matrimonial advertisement was got inserted in the newspaper and when this fact was brought to the notice to the Court, it is the petitioner who gave an undertaking in the Court that he will not get remarried during the proceedings. 15. Considered the respective submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Attempts for reconciliation were made even prior to the hearing of the appeal in this Court. The parties appeared before this Court on 20th of August, 2007. The petitioner refused to keep the respondent with him. On account of this attitude of the petitioner, the reconciliation proceeding failed. 16. Attempts for reconciliation were made even prior to the hearing of the appeal in this Court. The parties appeared before this Court on 20th of August, 2007. The petitioner refused to keep the respondent with him. On account of this attitude of the petitioner, the reconciliation proceeding failed. 16. The main plank of the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that marriage between the parties has broken down irretrievably and they are living separately for the last about 14 years, a fact which is not much in dispute and as such it is an appropriate case where a decree of divorce should be passed. To buttress the submission he has placed reliance upon certain decisions of the Apex Court, noticed in the latter part of this judgment. However, he also placed relevant portions from the pleadings as also the oral depositions of the parties with a view to demonstrate that the respondent misbehaved and ill-treated the petitioner all the time as also she refused to carry out ordinary, usual household works such as cooking of food etc. and the trial Judge has not properly appreciated and understood the real controversy involved in the case. 17. With the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties the matter was re-examined by me. The case of the petitioner is that since the respondent’s father was Superintendent Engineer and had facility of servants, the respondent refused to do the household work on the pretext that these jobs were used to be done by the servants at her parental house. In this connection, on examination of oral deposition of the petitioner it is evident that the petitioner did not employ any servant. He has stated that he was transferred from Podanur to Mangalore as Executive Engineer where he gave his joining on 29th October, 1991. He further states that he did not employ any servant due to financial constraints and used to carry on the cleaning of clothes etc., himself. He used to help the respondent in cooking the food. The parties lived together for about 4 years and there is nothing on record to show that at any point of time any servant was employed. He used to help the respondent in cooking the food. The parties lived together for about 4 years and there is nothing on record to show that at any point of time any servant was employed. The trial Court has accepted the testimony of the respondent that she used to cook the food for the family, earlier, on stove and heater, subsequently on cooking gas and managed the house work with whatever was provided to her by the husband. I find no good reason to take a different view of the matter, specially when no attempt was made by the learned counsel for the appellant to challenge the said finding in any manner. 18. The next allegation is with regard to the quarrelsome behaviour of the respondent and indifferent attitude towards her parents in laws and friends. It may be noted that the allegations made by the petitioner are general in nature except one incident dated 19th April, 1994, the visit of petitioner’s parents and the brother of respondent on the same date. 19. Indisputably, the petitioner has not examined anybody to show that on any particular occasion, the respondent misbehaved or ill-treated any friend or visitor or relative of the petitioner. On the other hand, the documentary evidence on record has a different story to tell. The letters written by the respondent to her mother do show that shortly after the marriage things were not smooth between the petitioner and the respondent. The learned counsel for the respondent referred the letters in detail during the course of the argument to support the respondent’s case. One such letter Ex-A3 is dated 20th April, 1992 by the respondent to her parents wherein she has complained of maltreatment at the hands of the petitioner. She has written that Brajesh (petitioner) has developed a habit of saying anything without giving a prior thought to it. She was turned out from her room and the door of the room was locked from inside by the petitioner and she spent the night outside the room on floor. She was told that she need not remain there and free to go elsewhere to the place of her liking, reservation (for travelling) could be obtained by tomorrow. The other letter Ex-A 4 is dated 26th May, 1992. She was told that she need not remain there and free to go elsewhere to the place of her liking, reservation (for travelling) could be obtained by tomorrow. The other letter Ex-A 4 is dated 26th May, 1992. The tenor of this letter is that the petitioner had developed habit of teasing the respondent as he has become proud of being I.R.E.S. According to the petitioner, the respondent is not well educated as she got the education from substandard institution. She was told by the petitioner that he would make her weep throughout life and would not allow to enter the house, the moment she leaves it. In the letter dated 9th of June, 1992 Ex-A5, the respondent wrote to her parents that petitioner has started using abusive language and attempted to beat her. 20. The other letter is dated 13th of November, 1992 Ex-A6 by the respondent to her father making complaint about the misbehaviour of the petitioner which has made her life hell. She at the end has made an appeal to her father what she should do under such circumstances as her life has become “difficult”. She also expressed her apprehension that in ensuing marriage of his brother, Brajesh would create a scene in the marriage or shortly thereafter. The petitioner neglected to look after even the daughter Disha and refused to provide even medical help when she was having some ailment in her legs. No explanation has been furnished by the petitioner about these letters and they go uncontroverted. These letters do demonstrate that it is the petitioner who was creator of unpleasant situations and rough weather in the family. It is he who did not take proper care of his wife which was expected from a loving and caring husband. It is he who was not worried about the health of his lone infant child Km. Disha aged even less than two years. The letter dated 13th November, 1993 Ex-A6 throws sufficient light about the attitude and behaviour of the petitioner towards the ill-fated respondent and the child Km. Disha. These letters were written under the normal circumstances and there is no suggestion even remotely to doubt them. 21. Disha aged even less than two years. The letter dated 13th November, 1993 Ex-A6 throws sufficient light about the attitude and behaviour of the petitioner towards the ill-fated respondent and the child Km. Disha. These letters were written under the normal circumstances and there is no suggestion even remotely to doubt them. 21. In sequence of the events it appears that a sort of understanding and compromise was arrived at between the parties as is evident from the letter dated 27th of October, 1992 Ex-Ka-7, admittedly, written by the petitioner to the wife. Through this letter the petitioner had taken responsibility of all the things happened earlier and he undertook the future responsibility of the respondent and Disha with assurance that he will perform his duties and discharge obligations towards the respondent and Disha properly. 22. To wriggle out from the said letter, a theory though not pleaded, was put forward during the deposition by the petitioner that the said letter was obtained under threat and coercion. He was confronted with the said letter and admitted that it was written by him. The explanation that the said letter was not written after any unpleasant situation nor with a view to tender apology to the respondent, is difficult to believe. Be that as it may, it does appear that the parties were not pulling on well and the differences had arisen and attempts were made to preserve the marriage tie by the family members of the respondent for welfare of the parties. 23. There is one more aspect of the case. It is with regard to the matrimonial advertisements published in Times of India dated 13th September, 1998 and 20th September, 1998 which are on record. 24. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondent is that the aforestated advertisements were inserted in the newspaper at the instance of the petitioner inviting matrimonial alliance for court marriage. When this fact came to the knowledge of the respondent, the matter was placed before the Court hearing the divorce petition giving rise to the present appeal. There is no specific denial from the side of the petitioner that the aforestated advertisements did not relate to him. Moreover, he on 19th day of April, 1999 did give an undertaking before the Court to the effect that he will not get married during the pendency of the proceeding. 25. There is no specific denial from the side of the petitioner that the aforestated advertisements did not relate to him. Moreover, he on 19th day of April, 1999 did give an undertaking before the Court to the effect that he will not get married during the pendency of the proceeding. 25. The other limb of the argument with regard to cruelty is that the respondent made the allegation of character assassination of the petitioner while making complaint to his superiors against his behaviour. In para 13 of the divorce petition it has been stated by the petitioner that in the notice dated 30th September, 1994 by the respondent it was mentioned that the petitioner has developed illicit intimacy with a lady doctor at Podanur and that the petitioner endeavoured to contract a second marriage with a girl of means. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner this amounts to mental cruelty on the part of the respondent, as prestige of the petitioner has been lowered down in the estimation of his superiors and colleagues. The Court was taken through a copy of the said notice in detail. 26. On a proper construction and interpretation of the said complaint made by the respondent to the Board, it is difficult to cull out the above inference as suggested by the petitioner. The said letter is a humble one and its tenor is to give proper advice to Shri Brajesh Kumar not to misbehave with the respondent. Request was made to exercise good offices on Shri Brajesh Kumar to mend his attitude towards the author of the letter. Also maintenance by deducting two third from his salary, was prayed for with request to provide some suitable job looking to her qualification in order to rehabilitate her. The objectionable sentence as per the petitioner, reads as follows : "5. At Podanur he quickly developed intimacy with a lady." 27. This is all. How the above quoted prortion amounts to character assassination of a person is difficult to understand, specially keeping in mind the background facts of the case. The letter appears to have been written with survival instinct and not by way of causing any aspersion on the character of the petitioner. It is the petitioner who by taking undue advantage of the said quoted sentence from the letter tried to expand the thing out of context. The letter appears to have been written with survival instinct and not by way of causing any aspersion on the character of the petitioner. It is the petitioner who by taking undue advantage of the said quoted sentence from the letter tried to expand the thing out of context. In the enquiry report, the concerned officer has stated that the allegations brought out in the complaint do not pertain to official work but are purely of domestic nature. It has been further noted by him that Brajesh Kumar has sought a legal remedy for the dispute by filing suit in the Family Court, Madras for legal separation and custody of the child. 28. In my considered opinion, by no stretch of imagination, the said letter/complaint of the respondent causes any aspersion on the character of the petitioner. Nor it amounts mental cruelty. At this stage, it is relevant to note here that it is the petitioner who filed the divorce petition but the respondent has shown great restraint and has not taken recourse to any criminal or civil Court proceedings which are usual in such matters. This also fortifies the view taken by the Court below that the respondent has not treated the petitioner with cruelty, mental or physical. 29. The order act of the cruelty as pleaded by the petitioner is that when his parents reached to his residence on 19th April, 1994, the respondent refused to prepare and cook the food for them. She called her brother who also reached on the same date, but the respondent took proper care of her brother and refused to look after her parents in law. 30. There is no corroborative evidence in support of the above plea. The statement of the respondent, on the other hand, has a different story to tell. She has stated that on 16th April, 1994 Km. Disha was weeping badly. The respondent requested the petitioner to take her care for a short while. Instead of taking care of Km. Disha, the respondent was beaten and she received injuries on her person. She started vomiting. She telephoned her father at Roorkie at about 9 P.M. Her father sent the elder brother Atul to Madras to find out the situation. The respondent requested the petitioner to take her care for a short while. Instead of taking care of Km. Disha, the respondent was beaten and she received injuries on her person. She started vomiting. She telephoned her father at Roorkie at about 9 P.M. Her father sent the elder brother Atul to Madras to find out the situation. This incident was also reported by her father to General Manager, Southern Railway by registered post vide paper No. 211-C (said document has been proved by the respondent in her deposition along with the postal receipt of registry etc.). On 19th April, 1994 her brother reached to Madras. The petitioner got issued railway pass for the respondent being paper No. 222 Ex-A13 for her departure from Madras with the brother. 31. The evidence on the record do support the respondent’s version that she was beaten on 16th April, 1994. When it became impossible for her to live in her matrimonial house, she naturally sought help from her father through telephone. The allegation, thus, that the brother of respondent was called with any ill motive as levelled by the petitioner, is, therefore, not correct. It is the petitioner who is responsible for the ouster of the respondent from the matrimonial house. 32. The respondent in her deposition has stated that her husband used to compare her with the wives of his friends and employees with regard to dowry that such and such ladies have brought so much dowry in the marriage. She further states that the allegation that her father was highly placed and that is the reason that she was suffering with complex is incorrect as her husband and her father in law were also equally well placed on high posts. She was pregnant in the month of December, 1990 and her mother in law suggested for abortion of the baby. During the pregnancy proper care was not taken by the petitioner and her body got swelling during that period but no medical treatment was provided for by the petitioner and she went to her parent’s house where she delivered the baby. At Mangalore, her husband used to give threat of beating her and the allegation that she refused to cook food or to look after her husband, is incorrect. At Mangalore, her husband used to give threat of beating her and the allegation that she refused to cook food or to look after her husband, is incorrect. She further stated that in the month of August, 1992 Brajesh lost temper to such an extent that he threw the tea tray by the stroke of his leg and started beating Km. Disha. The allegation that she neglected to perform her duties of a mother, have been denied and it has been stated categorically that Km. Disha is living with her and she is getting education in the best possible institution at Dehradun. There is no reason not to accept the statement of the respondent No. 2 which also finds corroboration from the documentary evidence. The statement of the petitioner, on the other hand, is scratchy and there is no corroborative material, oral or documentary. 33. To sum up, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner has utterly failed to prove “the cruelty” within the meaning of Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act and the finding of the trial Judge on this score is perfectly justified. 34. The foremost point which was pressed by the learned counsel for the appellant in the appeal, as noticed above, is that the parties are living separately for the last about 14 years and as such no useful purpose is going to be served to preserve such a marriage which is totally unworkable and has ceased to be effective. To put it differently, he submits that the marriage has broken down irretrievably and as such this Court should pass a decree of divorce. 35. Reliance was placed by the learned counsel for the appellant on the following cases : (1) Samarghosh v. Jaya, (2007) 4 SCC 511 (paras 92 to 102); (2) Satish v. Ganga, 2008 AIR SCW 5190; (3) Naveen Kohli v. Neelu Kohli, JT 2006 (3) SC 491 and (4) (2007) 2 SCC 263 , Rishikesh Sharma v. Saroj Sharma. 36. In reply, the learned counsel for the respondent has relied upon (1) Vinita Saxena v. Pankaj Pandit, (2006) 3 SCC 778 ; (2) Shyam Sunder Kohli v. Sushma Kohli, (2004) 7 SCC 747 ; (3) Chetan Das v. Kamla, (2001) 4 SCC 250 and (4) J.L. Nanda v. Smt. Veena Nanda, AIR 1998 SC 407. 37. Considered the respective submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. 37. Considered the respective submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. On a plain reading of Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, it would be clear that irretrievable break down of marriage has not been recognized by the Legislature as a statutory ground to grant relief of divorce to the parties as yet. The Apex Court for the first time in Ms. Jorden Diengdeh v. S.S.Chopra, (1985) 3 SCC 62 , a case under the Divorce Act, expressed that there is no point or purpose to be served by the continuance of a marriage which has so completely and signally broken down and time has come for the intervention of the Legislature in these matters to provide for a uniform code of marriage and divorce and to provide by law for a way out of the unhappy situations in which couples like the present have found themselves in. The Apex Court observed that sometime it is better to give a decree of divorce than to tie the parties. When the marriage has practically broken down, there is no point or purpose to be observed by continuance of a marriage which has though completely broken down. It was suggested that time has come for intervention of the Legislature in these matters to provide by law for a way out of unhappy situation in which couples have found themselves in. The aforestated observation has been reiterated by the Apex Court in subsequent judgments also. Noticeably, more than 20 years have gone by now but till date the legislature has not intervened in the matter. 38. At this juncture, learned counsel for the appellant submits that this Court also possesses jurisdiction to grant a decree of divorce as has been done by the Apex Court in numerous cases, some of them have been relied upon by him and noted above. Such an approach is not open to this Court for the reasons more than one. A fair reading of the aforesaid judgments would show that it was found while granting a decree for divorce by the Apex Court that other party was at fault or in any manner, he or she contributed to further aggravate a situation. Such an approach is not open to this Court for the reasons more than one. A fair reading of the aforesaid judgments would show that it was found while granting a decree for divorce by the Apex Court that other party was at fault or in any manner, he or she contributed to further aggravate a situation. In the case of Samar Ghosh (supra) which was heavily relied upon by learned counsel for the appellant, in para 103 the Apex Court found that when husband was seriously ill and surgical intervention of bypass surgery had to be resorted to, even on that occasion neither the respondent nor her father or any member of her family bothered to inquire about the health of the appellant even on telephone. From this an inference was drawn that now the parties have no emotions, sentiments or feelings for each other. It is not so in present case. Here, there is no such complaint against the wife by the petitioner. 39. As found above, no matrimonial fault or misconduct of any kind on the part of respondent wife has been found to be proved in the case on hand. 40. So far as the decision in the case of Naveen Kohli v. Neelu Kohli (supra) is concerned, the ratio laid down therein should be understood in the factual background of that case. In that case, the wife had initiated number of civil and criminal proceedings against her husband as they find place in paragraph 60 of the report. Besides this, she ventured to issue an advertisement in a national newspaper that her husband was only her employee and cautioned the business associates to avoid dealing with her husband. As already noted above, in the case on hand except sending a notice to the husband to improve his behaviour towards her and praying for maintenance for herself and the minor daughter, the respondent wife has done nothing. She has not filed or initiated any proceeding civil or criminal. Nor she has done any such thing which may lower down the prestige and reputation of her husband in the eyes of his friends, relatives and employees or anybody. 41. In the case of Navin Kohli the decree was passed by the Apex Court in the exercise of jurisdiction conferred on it under Article 142 of the Constitution of India. Nor she has done any such thing which may lower down the prestige and reputation of her husband in the eyes of his friends, relatives and employees or anybody. 41. In the case of Navin Kohli the decree was passed by the Apex Court in the exercise of jurisdiction conferred on it under Article 142 of the Constitution of India. In Rishikesh Sharma v. Saroj Sharma (supra) the Apex Court allowed the appeal of the husband and granted a decree of dissolution of marriage in his favour on the ground that the parties have been litigating since 1981 and have lost valuable part of life, now cannot live peacefully for remaining part of their life by non-grant of decree of divorce. The judgment delivered by the Apex Court should be understood on the facts of that case and it appears to have been passed in exercise of power conferred on it under Article 142 of the Constitution of India. The learned counsel for respondent has strongly placed reliance upon Shyam Sunder Kohli (supra) wherein it has been held that Court must not lightly dissolve a marriage on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage. Power should be exercised only in extreme circumstances. In that case the respondent as in the present case also expressed her willingness and readiness to go back to the appellant. It was found therein and in the present case also, that the wife was forced to leave matrimonial home. The appellant who was at fault and who has not allowed the marriage to work, cannot claim that the marriage should be dissolved on the ground of irretrievable break down. Para 12 is quoted below : “12. On the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage, the Court must not lightly dissolve a marriage. It is only in extreme circumstances that the Court may use this ground for dissolving a marriage. In this case, the respondent, at all stages and even before us, has been ready to go back to the appellant. It is the appellant who has refused to take the respondent back. The appellant has made baseless allegations against the respondent. He even went to the extent of filing a complaint of bigamy, under Section 494, IPC against the respondent. That complaint came to be dismissed. AS stated above, the evidence shows that the respondent was forced to leave the matrimonial home. The appellant has made baseless allegations against the respondent. He even went to the extent of filing a complaint of bigamy, under Section 494, IPC against the respondent. That complaint came to be dismissed. AS stated above, the evidence shows that the respondent was forced to leave the matrimonial home. It is the appellant who has been at fault. It can hardly lie in the mouth of a party who has been at fault and who has not allowed the marriage to work to claim that the marriage should be dissolved on the ground of irretrievable breakdown. We, thus, see no substance in this contention.” 42. The above case has been distinguished in the subsequent judgment of the Apex Court in the case of A. Jayachandra v. Aneel Kaur, (2005) 2 SCC 22 , vide para 17 which is reproduced below : “17. Several decisions, as noted above, were cited by learned counsel for the respondent to contend that even if marriage has broken down irretrievably decree of divorce cannot be passed. In all these cases it has been categorically held that in extreme cases the Court can direct dissolution of marriage on the ground that the marriage had broken down irretrievably as is clear from para 9 of Shyam Sunder case. The factual position in each of the other cases is also distinguishable. It was held that long absence of physical company cannot be a ground for divorce if the same was on account of the husband’s conduct. In Shyam Sunder case it was noted that the husband was leading adulterous life and he cannot take advantage of his wife shunning his company. Though the High Court held by the impugned judgment that the said case was similar, it unfortunately failed to notice the relevant factual difference in the two cases. It is true that irretrievable breaking of marriage is not one of the statutory grounds on which Court can direct dissolution of marriage, this Court has with a view to do complete justice and shorten the agony of the parties engaged in long-drawn legal battle, directed in those cases dissolution of marriage. But as noted in the said cases themselves, those were exceptional cases.” 43. Shyam Sunder’s case was distinguished on the ground that husband was living adulterous life and he cannot take advantage of his wife shunning his company. But as noted in the said cases themselves, those were exceptional cases.” 43. Shyam Sunder’s case was distinguished on the ground that husband was living adulterous life and he cannot take advantage of his wife shunning his company. However, it has not been held that Shyam Sunder’s case was not decided correctly. It was distinguished because of distinct fact situation. The facts of the case on the hand are very close to the facts of the case of Shyam Sunder. 44. Sum and substance of the above discussion is that a decree for dissolution of marriage by divorce on the ground of irretrievable break down of marriage can be passed only by the Apex Court in view of special jurisdiction conferred on it under Article 142 of the Constitution of India and not by High Court or Courts subordinate to it. A party who himself is wrong, cannot take advantage of his wrong and approach the Court to grant a decree of dissolution on the ground that the parties have been living separately for a considerable period of time. 45. Even otherwise also the petitioner does not show that he took plea of irretrievable breakdown of the marriage as a ground in the plaint. Bereft of the pleadings, the plea of irretrievable breakdown of marriage cannot be put forward, for the first time in appeal. 46. Before parting with the case, it is desirable to dispose of the application No. 166738 of 2008 dated 25th July, 2008 filed by the respondent-wife praying for a lump sum amount of Rs. 50,000/- as cost of litigation, travelling expenses and Rs. 32,500/- per month from the date of application towards the maintenance for herself and the daughter Km. Disha. So far as the litigation expenses are concerned, a sum of Rs. 10,000/- was awarded by the order dated 28.10.2002, no further amount is required to be paid by the appellant since the hearing of appeal has already taken place. So far as the amount of maintenance is concerned, this Court by the order dated 28.10.2002 taking into consideration the gross salary of the appellant at Rs. 26,704/-, the deduction of Rs. 6,396/- towards income tax etc. therefrom and Rs. 9,383/- (an income from other sources), had granted Rs. 3,000/- per month for maintenance to the respondent and Rs. 3,000/- per month to her minor daughter. 26,704/-, the deduction of Rs. 6,396/- towards income tax etc. therefrom and Rs. 9,383/- (an income from other sources), had granted Rs. 3,000/- per month for maintenance to the respondent and Rs. 3,000/- per month to her minor daughter. Now, the present application has been filed on the allegations inter alia that there has been upward revision of the salary of the appellant and now the minor is about sixteen and half years of age studying in class VI in Convent of Jesus and Mary High School Dehradun and Rs.14,500/- per month is being spent on her education apart from other expenses. In para 9 of the affidavit it has been stated that the appellant is drawing a net take home salary of Rs. 41,500/- per month and is also receiving monthly rent amounting to Rs. 7,865/-. In reply thereto, it has been stated in para 14 of the counter affidavit that net salary paid to him during the month of January, 2008 after deductions was Rs. 27,199. The gross income has been shown at Rs. 41,627/- and the total deduction which includes income tax, office club etc. is Rs. 14,428/-. In the rejoinder affidavit filed during the course of hearing, it has been stated that the latest pay slip of September, 2008 has not been filed. Apart from this, the appellant is also earning an amount of Rs. 7,865/- towards the rent from the house in NOIDA which appears to be no longer in dispute. It has been further stated that on account of pay revision as per the 6th Pay Commission Report effective w.e.f. 1st of January, 2006 the appellant who is presently in the pay scale of Rs. 18,400-500-22,400, will be getting salary in the pay scale of Rs. 37,400-67,000 with corresponding grade pay of Rs. 10,000/- per month. Taking into consideration, the hike in the monthly salary of the appellant as also the fact that the daughter Km. Disha is now of grown up age, it would be appropriate to double the maintenance expenses fixed earlier by this Court. 47. In view of the above, the appellant is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 12,000/- per month as maintenance charges which shall be shared equally by the respondent and daughter Km. Disha, w.e.f. November, 2008. The first payment at the enhanced rate shall be made in the month of December, 2008. 48. 47. In view of the above, the appellant is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 12,000/- per month as maintenance charges which shall be shared equally by the respondent and daughter Km. Disha, w.e.f. November, 2008. The first payment at the enhanced rate shall be made in the month of December, 2008. 48. The application is disposed of accordingly and stands allowed in part. 49. In view of the above discussion, I do not find any merit in the appeal. The appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. 50. However, it is provided that the appellant shall be liable to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs. 12,000/- per month towards the maintenance of the respondent and daughter Km. Disha, as indicated above. ————