Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 310 (UTT)

RAKESH KUMAR ARORA v. KANCHAN ARORA

2015-06-18

U.C.DHYANI, V.K.BIST

body2015
JUDGMENT By means of present First Appeal, the appellant is challenging the order dated 23.12.2013 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Udham Singh Nagar, in Family Case No.263 of 2009 “Rakesh Kumar Arora Vs. Smt. Kanchan Arora”, whereby the learned Judge has rejected the suit filed by the appellant under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment. 3. The main ground taken by the appellant before the Court below is that the respondent was suffering from Schizophrenia. The learned trial court, in detail, discussed this issue and came to the conclusion that the appellant failed to prove that respondent was suffering from Schizophrenia. We also find that there is no perversity in the judgment on this finding and the finding given by the trial Court is based on reasons. Another ground taken by the appellant was that the respondent has deserted the appellant and she is living separately since 2007. Though, the learned Judge, Family Court, Udham Singh Nagar gave finding against the appellant, but also observed in his order that on 20.07.2007, the parents of the respondent took the respondent with them and since then, she is residing with her parents and she is not accompanying the appellant without any reason. 4. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that, in fact, the respondent was trying for settlement and wanted to live with the appellant, but the appellant did not accompany her. 5. We find that the parties are not living together for last seven years and there is nothing, on which basis it can be said that the respondent tried to accompany him. In fact, the learned counsel for the respondent has not pressed this issue. 6. While deciding this matter, we also tried to visualize whether there is any possibility of reunion between the parties, but we found that the possibility of reunion is not there, inasmuch as, the husband is not agreeable for the same. 7. During the course of argument, the learned counsel for the appellant put a proposal that in case the divorce petition is allowed, the appellant is ready to give Rs. 10 Lakhs to the respondent for the sake of studies of his child, namely, Master Gaurav. 7. During the course of argument, the learned counsel for the appellant put a proposal that in case the divorce petition is allowed, the appellant is ready to give Rs. 10 Lakhs to the respondent for the sake of studies of his child, namely, Master Gaurav. Learned counsel for the parties also inquired this from their clients and they informed the Court that both the parties are agreeable for the settlement. Parties are also present in the Court today. 8. Considering the fact that the parties are not living together for last seven years and also considering the fact that no just reason was given for not accompanying her husband by the respondent, we allow the appeal and set aside the judgment and order dated 23.12.2013 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Udham Singh Nagar, in Family Case No.263 of 2009 “Rakesh Kumar Arora Vs. Smt. Kanchan Arora”. Decree of divorce is granted in favour of the appellant. Marriage between the appellant and respondent is dissolved by a decree of divorce. As undertaken by the appellant that he will pay Rs. 10 Lakhs to the respondent as permanent alimony, we direct the appellant to pay Rs. 10 Lakhs to the respondent, out of which Rs. 5 Lakhs shall be paid within a period of two weeks from today and the remaining Rs. 5 Lakhs shall be paid to the respondent within a period of three months from today. In case the said amount is not paid by the appellant to the respondent within the stipulated period, liberty is given to the respondent to move recall application before this Court.