JUDGMENT
A.K. Mathur, C.J.
1. This is a Letters Patent Appeal directed against judgment and order dated 20.4.1989 of the learned Single Judge in F.A. No. 122 of 1988 reversing the finding of the Trial Court which granted a decree of judicial separation on the ground of desertion by judgment dated 5th May, 1988.
2. Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that appellant Dulichand is the husband of respondent Smt. Uma Devi. They were married in 1975 and in the wedlock, two children were born. An application under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act was filed by the appellant-husband on the ground that they were not living together since 1978. The appellant, therefore, prayed for a decree of divorce on the ground of desention as well as cruelty. Learned Trial Judge, however, did not grant decree of divorce of marriage but passed a decree for judicial separation on the ground of desertion after recording the evidence of the parties. Learned Trial Judge found that the respondent-wife was not willing to go and reside with her husband. In that connection, the learned Trial Judge examined AW 1 Dulichand (appellant) and AW 2 Hari Narayan, though he did not rely on the statement of Dulichand. After concluding the trial, the learned Trial Judge granted a decree of dissolution of marriage. The learned Trial Judge also recorded a finding that all attempts made on 3.5.1988 for reconciliation failed and accordingly a decree of dissolution of marriage under Section 13A of the Hindu Marriage Act was passed.
3. Aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Trial Judge, the respondent – Uma Devi filed an appeal before this Court. This Court disposed of the said appeal by judgment dated 20.4.1989. The learned Single Judge also called both the parties for reconciliation and it appears that the appellant/husband was not willing to take the wife with him and declined to reconcile. Learned Single Judge, however, without referring to the evidence of the witnesses came to the conclusion that on the basis of evidence of Dulichand as a whole, no ground for dissolution of marriage is made out and allowed the appeal of the wife and set aside the decree of dissolution of marriage granted by the Trial Court. Hence, this appeal.
4. We have heard learned Counsel and perused the record. As per the statements of AW 1 Dulichand and AW 2 Harinarayan Mishra, it is more than evident that the marriage was solemnised way back in 1975 and thereafter from 1980, respondent wife has not resided with her husband. It seems that both have remained away themselves from 1980 and attempt before the learned Trial Court as well as this Court has failed to reconcile them. It would be of no use now to force both the parties to live together. Matrimonial disputes are of very sensitive nature and if the two parties have no inclination to live together, they cannot be forced for the same. In the present case, the husband was not ready to keep respondent-wife Uma Devi with him. Therefore, it would be unuseful to compel the appellant/husband to keep the wife /respondent with him at this time. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in somewhat similar circumstances had an occasion to observe in the case of Saroj Rani v. Sudarshan Kumar, AIR 1984 SC 1562, as under :
“….Furthermore we reach this conclusion without any mental compunction because it is evident that for whatever be the reason this marriage has broken down and the parties can no longer live together as husband and wife, if such is the situation it is better to close the chapter.”
5. The marriage between the parties in the present case was solemnised way back in 1975. As per the statement of Dulichand (husband), respondent-wife Smt. Uma Devi had hardly stayed with him for a couple of months during 1975 and 1980 and thereafter she totally deserted him and has not inhabited with him. Both the parties have thus suffered agony and hardships and hence it would not be proper at this stage to force them to live together by resorting to any technicality. We are, therefore, of the opinion that it would be just and fair to leave both the parties to live separately as they are living since 1980. In fact, the marriage has broken down and the parties can no longer live together as husband and wife. It would thus be not proper to maintain the order of the learned Single Judge.
6. Consequently, appeal is allowed. The order dated 20.4.1989 passed by the learned Single Judge is set aside and decree of judicial separation granted by the learned Trial Court is affirmed. However, the appellant/husband shall pay a sum of Rs. 2,000/- (Rupees two thousand) per month as permanent maintenance under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act to the respondent/wife, Smt. Uma Devi, as she has two children how to maintain. The respondent/wife be also given a sum of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand) in lump-sum because she will have to solemnise the marriage of her daughter who has by this time reached the marriageable age. There shall be no order as to costs.