Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 411 (UTT)

Ranjana v. Satendra Kumar

2024-06-13

RAKESH THAPLIYAL, RITU BAHRI

body2024
JUDGMENT : Ritu Bahri, C.J. Though the respondent has been served twice, none has put in appearance on his behalf. 2. Since the marriage of the parties was solemnized 13.04.2005, there is no child from the marriage and both the parties are living separately since 15.05.2005, the marriage between the parties is a dead marriage in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court. 3. The relevant details are as follows: - DATE OF MARRIAGE 13th April, 2005 DATE OF SEPARATION 15th May, 2005 DETAILS OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS BETWEEN THE PARTIES By Wife: 1. Case Crime No. 144/2007 in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Kashipur, under section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Act. 2. Case No. 206/2006 in the court of Family Judge Udham Singh Nagar, under section 125 of the CrPC. 3. Criminal Case No. 162/2010 in the court of Judicial Magistrate Kashipur, under section 406 of the Indian Penal Code. BY Husband: 1. Criminal Case no. 71/2011 in the Court of Judicial Magistrate/ Civil Judge(Junior Division) Kashipur, Udham Singh Nagar, under section 494 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Case No. 325/2009 in the Family Court, Udham Singh Nagar, under Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act. ISSUES FROM THE MARRIAGE No issue. DECISION OF THE FAMILY COURT Petition No. 236/2020 under Section 13 (A) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 was dismissed by the Order dated 06.04.2023. MAINTENANCE DECIDED BY THE FAMILY COURT Under Section 125, CrPC the court of the Family Judge, Udham Singh Nagar ordered the respondent (Husband) to pay Rs.2000/- to Petitioner (Wife) by passing the order dated 24.09.2008. RELIANCE PLACED ON THE FOLLOWING JUDGEMENTS OF THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT : 1. Samar Ghosh vs. Jaya Ghosh, (2007) 4 SCC 511 2. Shilpa Sailesh vs. Varubn Sreenivasan, (2023) SCC Online SC 544 3. Prakashchandra Joshi versus Kuntal Prakashchandra Joshi @ Kuntal Visanji shah, 2024 INSC 55 . 4. The divorce petition has been dismissed on the ground that there is no evidence with regard to demand of dowry and the Issue No. 1 has been decided against the appellant. 5. In view of the fact that the marriage of the parties was solemnized in 2005 and both the parties are living separately since 2005, which is of almost 20 years’ separation, and there is no issue from the marriage. 5. In view of the fact that the marriage of the parties was solemnized in 2005 and both the parties are living separately since 2005, which is of almost 20 years’ separation, and there is no issue from the marriage. There was a Criminal Case no. 71/2011 between the parties in the Court of Judicial Magistrate/ Civil Judge(Junior Division) Kashipur, Udham Singh Nagar, under section 494 of the Indian Penal Code and the same has been disposed of, and the appellant was acquitted, by the order of 14.06.2019 on the basis of the compromise deed between the parties. Keeping in View the facts of this marriage, it is not wrong to say that the said marriage is nothing more than a dead marriage. There is no emotional bonding and there is no scope of patch-up keeping in view the criminal litigation between the parties. 6. Keeping in view the compromise deed between the parties in Criminal Case No. 71/2011 filed by the respondent-husband under Section 494 IPC, we are not inclined to grant permanent alimony to the appellant. 7. In view of the above, the present Appeal is allowed and the judgment and order dated 06.04.2023 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar is set aside. 8. Consequently, pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.