RISHIKESH SHARMA versus SAROJ SHARMA

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 9 S.C.R. 245 · Decided: 21-11-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: AR. LAKSHMANAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

' . 
RISHIKESH SHARMA 
A 
v. 
SAROJ SHARMA 
NOVEMBER21, 2006 
[DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN AND TARUN CHATTERJEE, JJ.] 
B 
Hindu Law: 
Hindu Marriage Act; Section 28: 
c 
Husband filing petition for dissolution of marriage on ground of mental 
cruelty and desertion-Dismissed by trial Court-First appeal dismissed by 
High Court-On appeal, Held: Both the husband and the wife living separately 
and working for last 49 years-Wife repeatedly filing criminal cases against 
her husband-Only child born out of the wedlock has already been given in D 
marriage-Marriage irretrievably broken down with no possibility of the 
parties living together again-No useful purpose would be served by 
compelling both the parties to live together as they have lost valuable part 
of life in litigation-Under the circumstances, it would be appropriate to 
grant decree of divorce so that they live peacefully remaining part of their 
life-Decree of dissolution of marriage granted in favour of the husband 
E 
Appellant and respondent got married according to the Hindu rites and 
customs in the year 1972. After three years of marriage a daughter was born 
out of the wedlock. Because of the misunderstanding between them the 
respondent-wife started living separately from her husband from the year 1981 
F 
onwards and also filed several criminal proceedings against her husband. In 
the year 1989, the husband filed a petition for a decree of dissolution of 
marriage on the ground of mental cruelty and the respondent having deserted 
him. Trial Court dis:nissed the petition. The appeal filed by the husband under 
Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act was dismissed by the High Court. Hence 
the present appeal. 
G 
-.; 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD:l.1. In the instant case the marriage is irretrievably broken down 
with no possibility of the parties living together again. Both the parties have 
245 
H 
246 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 9 S.C.R. 
A crossed 49 years and living separately and working. (247-D-El 
1.2. There being a history of litigation with respondent-wife repeatedly 
filing criminal cases against her husband, the appellant which could not be 
substantiated as found by the Courts. This apart, only child born in the 
wedlock in 1975 has already been given in marriage. Under such 
B circumstances, the High Court was not justified in refusing to exercise its 
jurisdiction in favour of the appellant. (247-E-F) 
1.3. However, it will not be possible for the parties to live together and 
there is no purpose in compelling both the parties to live together. Therefore 
the best course, in the facts and circumstances of the case, is to dissolve the 
C marriage by passing a decree of divorce so that the parties who are litigating 
since 1981 and have lost valuable part of life can live peacefully in remaining 
part of their life. (247-G-H; 248-A) 
2. Though, the husband was ready and willing to pay lumpsum amount 
D by way of permanent alimony to the wife, but the wife was not willing to accept 
the same, however, she has expressed her willingness to live with her husband. 
Her desire to live with her husband at this stage and at this distance of time 
is not genuine. Therefore, the suggestion made by the wife is not accepted. In 
the result, the appeal filed by the husband stands allowed. There will be a 
decree of dissolution of marriage in favour of the husband. [248-B-CI 
.E 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5129 of2006. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 19.4.2005 of the High Court of 
Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Gwalior in F.A. No. 14of1999. 
F 
A.K. Chitale, Niraj Shanna and Vikrant Singh Sais for the Appellant. 
G 
S.S Dahiya, K.K. Said, M.S. Bakshi, L.K. Dahiya and Debasis Mishra for 
the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN, J. Leave granted. 
The husband is the appellant before us. The respondent is his wife. 
They got married according to the Hindu rites and customs in the year 1972. 
After three years of marriage a daughter was born of the wedlock. Because 
H of the misunderstanding between them the respondent started living separately 
RISHIKESH SHARMA v. SAROJ SHARMA [LAKSHMANAN, J.] 
247 
from her husband from the year 1981_ onwards and is working in the Social A 
Forestry Department. The respondent also filed several criminal proceedings 
against her husband with which we are not concerned in this appeal. 
In the year 1989 the appellant filed a petition for a decree of dissolution 

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