Allahabad High Court: In an appeal filed under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, assailing the judgment and order passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Varanasi, rejecting divorce petition filed by the appellant under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the Division Bench of Saumitra Dayal Singh and Donadi Ramesh, JJ., dismissed the appeal, while observing that a marriage cannot be held to have broken down irretrievably, solely owing to a lengthy separation between parties.
Background
The parties married in 1999 and had two children aged 20 and 23 years. During the initial years of marriage, the parties resided with the parents of the appellants at Varanasi. However, the appellant’s father, who was employed with the electric distribution corporation died in harness in 1998. The appellant was granted compassionate appointment in the corporation and was posted at Mirzapur, due to which he left his parental home at Varanasi and started residing at Mirzapur. During this period, the respondent continued living with his widowed mother and forged such a bond with her that the appellant’s mother executed a will in favour of the respondent.
The appellant has contended that the respondent was repeatedly cruel towards him, abused him and did not allow him to go to his paternal home. Further, respondent did not inform the appellant about the death of his mother, and assaulted the appellant at the cremation ghat and prevented him from performing her mother’s last rites. The appellant submitted that the respondent was constantly and consciously cruel towards him, so as to completely negate the possibility of leading a happy matrimonial life.
It was further submitted by the appellant that the marriage between the parties had broken down irretrievably, and that they had been living separately since 1999 i.e. for 25 years. He further contended that there was no hope of revival of the matrimonial relationship between the parties and that there existed only a legal tie between the parties, and no substance.
Decision and Analysis
The Court noted that though the appellant had pleaded the facts before the lower Court, it was at best a vague and generic description of the events that ensued, as the appellant was unable to provide any specific information regarding the date, time or place of occurrence of such events. The Court observed that the allegations levelled by the appellant were wholly bald, unsubstantiated, self-serving, and such allegations may have never been tested by way of cross examination. Therefore, they were rightly not accepted by the lower Court. The Court further said that there also existed no evidence of any cruelty ever being meted out by the respondent to the appellant.
The Court observed that the respondent continued to reside with the appellant’s mother and took care of her, to the extent that the mother executed a will in favour of the respondent, which was a testament to the nature of the relationship shared by them.
The Court said that even if the vague allegations put forth by the appellant were to be seriously considered, no independent witness or documentary evidence had been led to establish the appellant’s averments. The Court noted that the respondent had not deserted the appellant, but that he had to leave his parental home because of his job posting. The Court said that the relationship having survived during the entire period of the appellant’s long absence due to such employment, cannot be said to have broken down irretrievably citing the reason of long separation.
The Court held that in the present case there was a lack of any ancillary or attending circumstances to establish that the marriage between the parties had irretrievably broken down.
The Court, therefore, dismissed the appeal due to the lack of merit.
[Mahendra Kumar Singh v. Rani Singh, 2024 SCC OnLine All 3402, decided on 03-07-2024]