Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1697 (MP)

Alka Agnihotri v. Rajeev Agnihotri

2014-12-19

RAJENDRA MENON, VANDANA KASREKAR

body2014
JUDGMENT : Vandana Kasrekar, J. The appellant has filed the present appeal challenging the judgment and decree dated 27.6.2000 passed by District Judge, Bhopal in Civil Suit No. 90-A/1999. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant and the respondent entered into marriage on 2.3.1995 as per Hindu rites and religion. Out of the said wedlock, a daughter was born in the month of December, 1995. The appellant and the respondent started living separately from April, 1996. The respondent thereafter filed a suit for decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion. 2. The appellant denied the plaint allegations. The appellant, at the stage of evidence, requested the Court that looking to the allegations made by the respondent in the plaint it is not possible for her to live with the respondent. She further stated that if the respondent wanted divorce, then a decree for divorce may be granted in his favour. However, she prayed for grant of maintenance for herself and her daughter. 3. On the basis of the statement made by the appellant, the Trial Court granted the decree of divorce in favour of the respondent and directed the respondent to pay Rs. 1,35,670/- in lieu of price for the return articles and also granted permanent alimony at the rate of Rs. 3,000/- per month, alternatively, directed for payment of Rs. 3,00,000/- lump sum. 4. Being aggrieved by the part of the order by which the Trial Court has granted the decree of divorce in favour of the respondent, the appellant has filed the present appeal on the ground that the Trial Court has committed an error in granting a decree of divorce in favour of the respondent on the basis of the statement made by the appellant. 5. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. From perusal of the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court, it appears that the Trial Court has passed the decree on the basis of the admission made by the appellant in paragraphs 15 and 17 in her examination-in-chief. The Trial Court has further held that the appellant and the respondent are residing separately since April-May, 1996 and, therefore, marriage between them for all purposes is dead and it is not possible for them to reconcile and the Trial Court, therefore, granted the decree of divorce in favour of the respondent. The Trial Court has further held that the appellant and the respondent are residing separately since April-May, 1996 and, therefore, marriage between them for all purposes is dead and it is not possible for them to reconcile and the Trial Court, therefore, granted the decree of divorce in favour of the respondent. We do not see any infirmity in the order passed by the Trial Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K. Srinivas Rao Vs. D.A. Deepa, (2013) 5 SCC 226 has held as under: "30. It is also to be noted that the appellant-husband and the respondent-wife are staying apart from 27.4.1999. Thus, they are living separately for more than ten years. This separation has created an unbridgeable distance between the two. As held in Samar Ghosh, if we refuse to sever the tie, it may lead to mental cruelty. 31. We are also satisfied that this marriage has irretrievably broken down. Irretrievable breakdown of marriage is not a ground for divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. But, where marriage is beyond repair on account of bitterness created by the acts of the husband or the wife or of both, the Courts have always taken irretrievable breakdown of marriage as a very weighty circumstance amongst others necessitating severance of material tie. A marriage which is dead for all purposes cannot be revived by the Court's verdict, if the parties are not willing. This is because marriage involves human sentiments and emotions and if they are dried up there is hardly any chance of their springing back to life on account of artificial reunion created by the Court's decree." 6. Thus, as the appellant and respondent are residing separately since 1996 and the appellant herself made a request for divorce, it is held that the marriage between them has been irretrievably broken down. Thus, the Trial Court has not committed any error in passing the decree of divorce in favour of the respondent. The appeal filed by the appellant is, therefore, failed and is hereby dismissed.