- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Sneh Prabha (Smt) v. Ravinder Kumar .
Factual and Procedural Background
The respondent (husband) instituted proceedings for restitution of conjugal rights against the appellant (wife). The trial court granted the decree, and the High Court dismissed the wife’s appeal. Since 1979 the matter has been pending before the Supreme Court, which made several unsuccessful attempts to reconcile the parties. Although the spouses briefly resumed cohabitation—during which a daughter was born—they separated once more, and the decree for restitution was never executed. The respondent subsequently filed Divorce Petition No. 26 of 1978 before the District Judge, Chandigarh.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the marriage has irretrievably broken down, justifying a decree of divorce despite an earlier unexecuted decree for restitution of conjugal rights.
- What financial provision should be ordered for the maintenance and future welfare of the parties’ two daughters.
Arguments of the Parties
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court observed the protracted duration of the dispute and multiple failed reconciliation efforts. Concluding that there was “no chance” of the parties living together, it held that the marriage had irretrievably broken down and warranted dissolution.
In assessing maintenance for the daughters, the Court evaluated the respondent’s salary and rental income (Rs 1,800 per month from House No. 1012, Sector 38-B, Chandigarh) alongside the appellant’s teacher’s salary (Rs 4,000 per month). Balancing these financial capacities against the daughters’ educational and future marital needs, the Court ordered the respondent to pay Rs 4,000 per month from 1-1-1995, due before the 15th of every month until both daughters marry or become self-supporting.
To secure payment, the Court declared the maintenance a first charge on the respondent’s house and restrained him from alienating or encumbering the property without the District Judge’s prior permission. The daughters were granted liberty to seek additional assistance at the time of their marriages.
Holding and Implications
DECREE OF DIVORCE GRANTED; APPEAL DISPOSED OF WITH NO COSTS.
The Supreme Court dissolved the marriage with immediate effect, fixed Rs 4,000 per month as child maintenance, imposed a charge on the respondent's property to secure payments, and deemed Divorce Petition No. 26 of 1978 before the District Judge, Chandigarh, disposed of. The ruling resolves the dispute between the parties but does not articulate new legal precedent.
Order
1. This appeal is a sequel to the proceedings for restitution of conjugal rights instituted by the respondent (husband) against the appellant (wife). The trial court granted decree for restitution of conjugal rights to the respondent. The appeal against the judgment and decree of the trial court was dismissed by the High Court.
2. This appeal is pending in this Court since 1979 and during that period efforts were made by this Court on several occasions to have the differences between the parties settled but with no success. At one point of time the parties had started living together as a result of conciliation by this Court and a daughter was born during that period but again they separated and there seems to be no chance of their living together. We have also tried to persuade the parties to live together, specially for the sake of their two grown-up daughters, but there seems to be no possibility of their living together. Since the decree of restitution of conjugal rights has not been executed, the respondent has filed a divorce petition which is pending before the trial court at Chandigarh.
3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. We are satisfied that the marriage between the parties has irretrievably broken down. There is no chance of their living together. We, therefore, grant decree of divorce to the parties with immediate effect.
4. It is not disputed that the respondent owns House No. 1012, Sector 38-B, Chandigarh. The house is built on 7-1/2 (seven-and-a-half) marlas of land. According to the respondent, he is getting Rs 1800 per month as rent of the house. The respondent is a government servant and is drawing basic salary of Rs 2825 plus dearness allowance and other allowances admissible to him under the rules. The couple have two daughters, namely, Bhawana Vaid, aged (sic 8) years and Gargi Vaid, aged about 10 years. Both the girls are students. The appellant is working as a teacher in a government school. She is drawing Rs 4000 per month as salary. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the facts of this case specially the financial position of both the parties. The two daughters are living with the appellant and she has to bear the education and other expenses to support the girls. She has also to save some money for the marriage of the girls. Keeping in view these circumstances, we direct Ravinder Kumar (respondent) to pay a sum of Rs 4000 per month to the appellant for maintaining the two daughters. The maintenance amount of Rs 4000 shall be paid by the respondent till the time both the girls are married or both of them are in a position to earn their livelihood. We give liberty to the girls to approach the District Judge, Chandigarh for further financial assistance from the respondent at the time of the marriage of any one of them. We also direct that the sum of Rs 4000 per month as maintenance awarded by us, shall be the first charge on the property described as House No. 1012, Sector 38-B, Chandigarh owned by Respondent Ravinder Kumar. The respondent shall not alienate or dispose of the property or create any encumbrance in respect of the said property without prior permission of the District Judge, Chandigarh. The amount of Rs 4000 shall be payable by the respondent to the appellant from 1-1-1995. It shall be paid before the 15th of each month in which the maintenance is due.
5. The appeal is disposed of. No costs.
6. The Divorce Petition No. 26 of 1978 filed by the respondent, Ravinder Kumar, pending before the District Judge, Chandigarh shall be deemed to have been disposed of in view of the decree of divorce granted by us. A copy of this order be sent to the District Judge, Chandigarh and also to the respondent by post.
Alert