DURGA PRASANNA TRIPATHY versus ARUNDHATL TRIPATHY

Citation: [2005] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 833 · Decided: 23-08-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RUMA PAL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

DURGA PRASANNA TRIPATHY 
A 
V. 
ARUNDHATlTRIPATHY 
AUGUST 23, 2005 
B 
[RUMA PAL AND DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN, JJ.] 
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955-Section 13(/)-Marriage broke down 
within 7 months-Family Court granted decree of divorce to husband on 
grounds of desertion and cruelty by wife-Husband directed to pay Rs. 
50,000 towards permanent alimony-High Court set aside the decree of C 
divorce-On appeal, held : Parties are living separately for last 14 years-
Marriage has irretrievably broken down-No scope for re-union or re-
conciliation-Hence, dissolution of niarriage appropriate-However, amount 
towards permanent alimony enhanced by Rs. I /akh-Family Courts Act, 
1984-Section 19-Constitution of India, 1950-Article 142. 
D 
Family Court allowed petition filed by appellant-husband under 
Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and granted him decree of 
divorce on grounds of cruelty and desertion. However, it directed the 
appellant to pay Rs. 50,000 towards permanent alimony to his wife-the 
respondent. On appeal, High Court set aside the decree of divorce 
passed by the Family Court, holding that the appellant had failed to 
prove cruelty and desertion as against the respondeQt. Hence the present 
appeal. 
E 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
F 
HELD: 1. The High Court held against the appellant on two points, 
namely: - misquoting of the evidence of respondent, by the Family 
Court; and inconsist~nt plea of the appellant with regard to leaving the 
matrimonial home by the respondent. Both the aforesaid points taken 
into consideration by the High Court cannot be construed as a finding G 
upon the merits of the case. 
1.1. The Family Court gave cogent and convincilll! reasons for 
passing the decree of divorce in favour of the appellant. It gave a clear 
finding that in spite of good deal of endeavour to effect a reconciliation H 
833 
834 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 
A the same could not be effected because of the insistence of the respond-
ent to remain separately from her in-laws, which was totally an imprac-
ticable solution. This part, till date the respondent has not taken any 
steps from her side to go back to her matrimonial home. The said fact 
gets reflected from her own deposition before the Family Court. 
B 
c 
2.2. Having been convinced that there was no chance of reunion or 
reconciliation between the parties, more so because of the complaint 
filed by the respondent before the Mahila Commission, the Family 
·Court with a view to put a quietus to the litigation inter se and the 
bitterness between the parties rightly passed the decree of divorce. 
3.1. The compliant before the Mahila Commission does not impli-
cate the appellant for dowry harassment though the respondent in her 
evidence before the Family Court has alleged dowry harassment by the 
appellant. The complaint was lodged only after notice was issued by the 
D 
Family Court on the application filed by the appellant under Section 13 
of the Hindu Marriage Act. The harassment by the in-laws of the 
respondent was an after-thought since the same was alleged after a gap 
of 7 years of marriage and desertion by the respondent. 
E 
F 
3.2. Respondent in her evidence had not disputed the fact t.hat 
attempts have been made by the appellant and his family to bring her 
back to the matrimonial home for leading a conjugal life with the 
appellant. The appellant having failed in his ·efforts to get back the 
respondent to her matrimonial home and having faced the trauma of 
performing the last rites of his deceased father without the respondent 
and having faced the ill-treatment meted out by the respondent to him 
and his family had no other efficacious remedy but to approach the 
Family Court for decree of divorce. 
3.3. The appellant had proved before the Family Court both the 
factum of separation as well as animus deservendi which are the essential 
G elements of desertion. Besides, enough instances of cruelty meted out by 
the respondent to the appellant were cited before the Family Co.urt and 
the Family Court being convinced granted the decree of divorce. 
Sanat Kumar Agarwal v. Nandini Agarwal, (1990] 1 SCC 475; 
H Adhyatma Bhattar A/war v. Adhyatma Bhattar Sri Devi, [2002) 1SCC308 
DURGA PRASANNA TRIPATHYv. ARUNDHATI TRIPATHY 835 
and G. V.N. Kameswara Rao v. G. Jabil/i, [20021 2 SCC 296, relied on, A 
4,L The parties could not carry on their marital ties beyond a 
period of 7 months of their marriage, 14 years have elapsed since

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.