CHAUHAN, J. - (1.) AMONG the Hindus marriage is supposed to last for seven lives. But at times, a marriage barely survives seven years. What is hoped to be a blissful existence quickly turns into a bitter experience for the young couple. But, c'est la vie! (Such is life!) The appellant-wife is challenging the judgment dated 12. 7. 2006 passed by the District Judge, Jhunjhunu whereby the learned Judge has granted a decree of divorce in favour of the respondent husband under Section 13 (1) (a) and Section 13 (1) (1) (B) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (henceforth to be referred to as "the Act", for short ).
(2.) THE appellant and the respondent (henceforth to be referred to as "the wife and the husband" respectively, for short) have narrated two different and contrary sets of facts, which need to be dealt with in detail. According to both the parties, their marriage was solemnized on 22. 2. 2002, in Jaipur, in accordance with the Hindu customs and rites. While the husband was the son of an ex-M. L. A. , who was also a State Minister, the wife was the daughter of a retired higher judicial officer (the father having retired as a District Judge ). While the husband hails from Sikar, the wife comes from a small town, Neem-ka-Thana in Sikar district. While the wife has completed LL. B. , the husband has a lesser degree than the wife. According to the husband, he had not only accepted Rs. 1/- by way of dowry, but also the entire expenses of the marriage was borne by his father. THE husband further alleged that immediately after the marriage when the couple returned to the matrimonial home in Sikar, the wife refused to observe any of the marriage ceremonies, such as worshiping the family deity, the unbinding of the sacred thread, which is tied on the wrist of the newly wedded couple. When she was asked to perform these ceremonies, she refused to do so. For, according to her, such ceremonies were antiquated-they had no meaning for her. Before the gathering of the people, she also derided the husband as being ill educated and as being superstitious in nature. Because of her blunt comments, the husband felt humiliated before his relatives. Further, according to the husband, on the very first night, the wife refused to allow him to have any physical relationship with her until and unless he fulfilled five demands of hers. According to him, the first demand was that he should deposit Rs. 20,00,000/- in an FDR in her name. Secondly, that instead of his living with his parents in Jaipur, he should live with her either at Udaipur or Rajsamand, where the family owned certain marble mines. Thirdly, he should make her a partner in the family business while granting her 40% of the profit of the partnership. Fourthly, he should buy her parents a plot at Jaipur. And fifthly, he should live according to her parents' wishes. She also told him that in case he does not fulfill her demands, he would have to face grave consequences. He tried to explain to her that since there are only three brothers in the family, as it is, he would be entitled to one-third share in the family property. Moreover, he tried to explain to her that her duty as a daughter-in-law is to look after the welfare of the family, and to gain the love and affection of the family members. But, instead of understanding his logic, the wife told him that she would not have any physical relationship with him, until and unless her demands are fulfilled. She further told him that she is not worried about the politician or about the police as such people have always stood before her father in a humble position. According to the husband, he was, indeed, shocked and dismayed to hear such things from the wife on the very first night. He further claimed that on the next day, he told his sister-in-law (Bhabhi) as to what had transpired at night. He further alleged that two days later when he took the wife back to her parental place, he was given a separate room away from the wife. Even at night, the wife did not come into his room to establish any physical relationship. Hoping that things would improve, although the marriage was not consummated till then, he still brought his wife back to the matrimonial home. Though on their way back to Jaipur he tried to explain things to her, her behaviour did not change at all : the moment they reached home, the wife went inside the bedroom and locked herself. She refused to interact with the family and to do anything for the family. Moreover, he alleged that on 28. 2. 2002 the wife's brother along with a friend of the wife's father came to the matrimonial home to take away the wife. THE wife packed her expensive Saris and her gold jewelleries and left the matrimonial home. For three months, the wife did not come back. When the husband contacted his father-in-law, he told the husband that his daughter will go back only after finishing her LL. B. Examination. In July, he again contacted his father-in-law, who told him that he would consult his wife and his daughter and would inform him about the date of daughter's departure. But, the father-in-law never called back. Whenever the husband would call his in-laws' place, even the mother-in-law repeated the five demands made by the wife on the first night. According to him, once the wife picked up the phone, he asked her to come back. But, she refused to do so until her demands were met. She further told him that she could make his life hellish, if she wanted to. THEreupon, the husband's family sent a number of persons, including some retired Judges, in order to convince the wife to return to the matrimonial home. But, these efforts also failed. On 20. 3. 2005 the husband's father himself went to fetch the daughter-in-law. But, her parents refused to let her go. Instead, on 21. 3. 2005 the wife lodged a First Information Report, registered as FIR No. 89/2005 at the Police Station Neem-ka-Thana wherein she claimed that her husband and her in-laws were torturing her for dowry and that they have kept her "stridhan" (property belonging to the wife ). Because of the FIR, the husband and his family members had to seek bail from this Court. Subsequently, the wife and her parents not only called press conferences, but also published articles in the Press making derogatory comments about the husband's father and his family. Since the husband's father was a well-known politician, naturally the Press Conferences and the Press Report caused him both social and political embarrassment. Since the wife had left the matrimonial home on 28. 2. 2002, without any sufficient cause, and since her behaviour had been cruel towards the husband, the husband filed a petition for divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion before the District Judge, Jhunjhunu. On the other hand, the wife has narrated a totally different version. According to her, her father-in-law was a big "neta" (a term in Hindi meaning "a politician", but having a negative connotation ). She further claimed that her father-in-law had falsely claimed that his son had done M. B. A. She further claimed that for the pre-marital ceremonies i. e. the engagement, the "tika" and the "goad bharai", her father had to spent lacs of rupees. She further claimed that her father had spend Rs. 1. 5 lacs on the Goad bharai Ceremony and had to give silver and gold jewelleries, had to send a truckload of sweets and fruits to her in-law's place. She further alleged that her father-in-law secretly took Rs. 5 lacs as dowry. But, in order to appear to be an honest "neta", he accepted Rs. 1/- as a token dowry in front of the people. She further stated that on 26. 1. 2002 and 15. 2. 2002 her father-in-law sought Rs. 5 lacs in two installments for the purpose of arranging the marriage at Jaipur. About her first night, she claimed that the husband came deadly drunk into the bedroom and muttered something about insufficient dowry. According to her, he collapsed in the bed and slept like a log in the night. Thus, the marriage could not be consummated on the first night. She denied the five demands allegedly made by her to the husband. She further claimed that while the husband's elder brother has married against the wishes of the family, husband's younger brother is physical challenged. Therefore, the entire family is dependent on her husband. She further alleged that both her husband and her in laws constantly demanded between Rs. 5 lacs to Rs. 7 lacs and expensive cloths and jewellery to be brought by her as dowry. According to her, in the intervening night of 27/28. 2. 2002, the husband threw her outside the bedroom; therefore, she had no option but to return to her parental place in Neem-ka-Thana. She further claimed that on 27/28. 5. 2002 her father and a sarpanch went to her in-law's place hoping to strike conciliation between the two families. However, both her father and the sarpanch were maltreated and were thrown out by the in- laws. Although, she admitted that certain persons came from her in-law's side, but according to her, instead of trying to reconcile the couple, they pressurized her and her family members to agree for a divorce. She further alleged that on 20. 3. 2005 the husband's elder brother along with few persons had come to her house. When her father told the people that her father-in-law is making an unusual demand of dowry, her brother-in-law (Jeth) pulled out a revolver and threatened to shoot her father. Even in the night of 20. 3. 2005, an attempt was made on her father. She made further allegations against her father-in-law wherein she claimed that he was a corrupt politician. According to her, it is not she, who had left the matrimonial home, but it is her husband, who left her at her parental place on 2. 3. 2002. While filing her written statement, which contained the above averments, she also filed an application under Section 9 of the Act for the restitution of conjugal rights. According to her, it is the husband and his family members, who have been cruel and who have forced her to stay away from the husband. After going through the pleadings, the learned trial court framed five issues. In order to support his case before the learned trial Court, the husband examined four witnesses. In order to buttress her case, the wife examined three witnesses including herself. She also submitted about forty-eight documents. After a detailed discussion of the evidence both oral and documentary, the learned Judge granted the divorce in favour of the husband. Hence, this appeal before this Court. In order to try reconciliation between the wife and husband, this Court directed both the parties to appear before it. Eventually, the parties appeared before this Court on 18. 10. 2006. The wife's father also accompanied her. After a detailed discussion with the parties, it was crystal clear that there is no possibility of reconciliation between them. Both the parties agreed that only the issue of permanent alimony should be decided, as the wife was not satisfied by the monthly alimony decided by the learned trial Court. Both the parties were directed to explore the amount of permanent alimony, which they would like to settle for. On 6. 11. 2006 Mr. R. S. Rathore, the learned counsel for the respondent, suggested that the case be heard not on the merits of the case, but on the criteria which should be applied for grant of permanent alimony. Ms. Soniya Shandilya, the learned counsel for the appellant, agreed with the said suggestion. Since reconciliation between the parties appeared to be impossibility, this Court directed the learned counsels to argue on the criteria the basis for grant of permanent alimony. Mr. R. S. Rathore has contended that Section 25 (1) of the Act spells out three elements; firstly, that a permanent alimony can be paid either as a gross sum or as a monthly sum. Secondly, while deciding the permanent alimony, the court should have regard to the husband's income and property. Thirdly and most importantly, the court must examine the conduct of the other spouse, namely the wife. He further stated that in the present case, the conduct of the wife has been most unreasonable and arbitrary from day one. She not only dictated unrealistic conditions, but also deprived the husband the pleasure of physical relationship in case the conditions were not fulfilled. Moreover, her behaviour with other members of the family, her disregard for the family traditions, her ridiculing the husband were act of cruelty, which should be read against her for deciding the permanent alimony. Lastly, without any rhyme or reason, she has abandoned the matrimonial home. Despite the repeated efforts made by the husband the father-in-law and by other respectable members of the community, she has consistently refused to come back to the matrimonial home. Her behaviour clearly reveals not only the act of desertion, but also reveals the animus deserendi (the intention to desert ). Thus, the factum of desertion by the wife are clearly present. According to him, the wife has been granted a monthly alimony of Rs. 8,000/- by the learned trial Court, the same has not been challenged by her before this Court. Therefore, the amount granted by the learned trial Court need not be disturbed. According to him, the said amount is sufficient for the wife to live on. In order to buttress his case, the learned counsel has relied upon Umesh Chand vs. Rameshwari Devi (AIR 1982 Raj. 83) and Yogeshwar Prasad vs. Smt. Jyoti Rani (AIR 1981 Delhi 99 ).
(3.) ON the other hand, Mrs. Shandilya has relied upon a large number of case laws to argue that while considering the grant of permanent alimony, the court should consider the family status of the parties, the life style of the parties and the present and the future needs of the wife. According to her, the husband comes from an economically effluent family. He and his family members are owners of marble mines and have other businesses to their credit. Furthermore, desertion by the wife does not disentitle her from the permanent alimony. In order to buttress this contention, the learned counsel has relied upon the case of Gopal Lal Bolya vs. Gyatri Devi (II (1989) DMC 28 (DB) ). Thus, even if the wife has deserted the husband, even then she is entitled to permanent alimony. We have heard both the learned counsels. As mentioned above, after discussing with both the parties in detail in the Chamber, this Court is of the opinion that reconciliation between the parties is impossible. Thus, the irreparable breakdown of marriage is writ large in the present case. In the case of Naveen Kohli vs. Neelu Kohli (2006) 4 SCC 558), the Hon'ble Supreme Court clearly held as under: The court, no doubt, should seriously make an endeavour to reconcile the parties; yet, if it is found that the breakdown is irreparable, then divorce should not be withheld. The consequences of preservation of law of the unworkable marriage which has ling ceased to be effective, are bound to be a source of greater misery for the parties. By refusing to severe that tie the law in such cases does not serve the sanctity of marriage, on the contrary, it shows scant regard for the feelings and emotions of the parties. Public interest demands not only that the married status should, as far as possible, as long as possible, and whenever possible, be maintained, but where a marriage has been wrecked beyond the hope of salvage, public interest lies in the recognition of that fact. Since there is no acceptable way in which a spouse can be compelled to resume life with the consort, nothing is gained by trying to keep the parties tied forever to a marriage that in fact has ceased to exist. ;