SIVASANKARAN Vs. SANTHIMEENAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant-husband and the respondent-wife resolved to tie the marital knot by solemnising their marriage as per the Hindu rites and customs on 7.2.2002. It appears there was a crash landing at the take-of stage itself! The appellant claims that the respondent 's view was that she had been coerced into marrying the appellant without giving her consent, and left the marriage hall late at night and went to Pudukkottai. An endeavour by the relatives of the appellant to persuade her on the very next day to live with the appellant was not fruitful. The marriage was never consummated. As the marriage did not work out since its inception, the appellant issued a notice dated 25.02.2002 seeking divorce on the ground of cruelty under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act '). Surprisingly, the respondent filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights soon thereafter. Respondent 's case was that the appellant and his family demanded dowry and, on being unable to oblige, the appellant 's brothers took him away from the Respondent 's company, rendering consummation of the marriage impossible. She claims that it was the appellant who refused to cohabit with her. In these circumstances, appellant filed HMOP 24/2003 on 05.03.2003 under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Act, which was later re-numbered as HMOP 10/2005. Post-trial, a decree of divorce was granted after almost 5 years on 17.3.2008 on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage. The appellant did not waste much time and got married a second time on 23.3.2008 after 6 days. The respondent preferred an appeal before the Addl. District Judge, Pudukkottai. It is her case that she filed an appeal on 1.7.2008, within the period of limitation after obtaining all the requisite papers; but the appeal was renumbered as CMA No.5 and 7 of 2011. The appellate court set aside the decree of divorce while allowing the petition for restitution of conjugal rights. The third round took place before the High Court in second appeal and, in terms of judgment dated 14.9.2018, the decree of divorce granted by the trial court was restored. Thus, each stage of scrutiny took 5 years, and 15 years passed in the litigation. In this period, the battle between the parties continued. This inter alia posed a question mark on the status of the second marriage of the appellant. The matter, however, did not end at this. The respondent filed a review petition inter alia on the ground that it was not within the jurisdiction of the High Court or the trial court to grant a decree of divorce on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage. The High Court noticed some aspects of alleged cruelty and dissolved the marriage by passing a decree of divorce on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage. Thus, the review petition was allowed by the impugned order dated 25.2.2019, which has been assailed in the present appeal.

(2.) The endeavour to find a solution through mediation or any acceptable solution between the parties did not succeed. According to the learned counsel for the parties, the respondent was not willing to concede the decree of divorce on any terms even though both the parties are educated and living their separate lives now for almost two decades. In fact, learned counsel for the respondent even stated that she was not disturbed by nor wanted to afect the status of the second marriage; but was unwilling to concede to a scenario where her marriage with the appellant came to an end even though in view of the financial status of the parties no maintenance was being claimed. In these circumstances, we are called upon to take a view of the matter in the given factual scenario and the subsequent developments, which are material, during the pendency of the proceedings at various stages of the judicial process.

(3.) We have examined the rival contentions of the parties and we have little doubt that this is one marriage which has not worked and cannot work. This is not only on account of the fact that the appellant has married a second time but also because the parties are so troubled by each other that they are not willing to even think of living together. This, despite the fact that the respondent keeps on claiming that she is and was always willing to live with him.