Raj Kumar Rana v. Rita Rathore

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court
Hon'ble Judges: V. Gopala Gowda
R. Banumathi
Judgment Date: 2015-03-10
Court Decision / Holding: Appeal allowed. The marriage between the appellant and the respondent is dissolved by mutual consent under Article 142. The Rs. 10 lakh deposited in Court is invested in the name of the minor son in a Nationalized Bank, with the respondent permitted to withdraw the annual interest for the child’s welfare. No costs now. A copy of the judgment is to be sent to the District Judge, Solan, HP.
Final Disposition: Appeal allowed.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Raj Kumar Rana

Respondents

Rita Rathore

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Harpreet Singh
• Rajesh Gupta
• Pratap Venugopal
• K. J. John & Co.

Counsels for Respondents

• Ms. Radhika Gautam
• E. C. Agrawala

Case Synopsis & Summary

This Supreme Court appeal concerns a divorce petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, between Raj Kumar Rana and Rita Rathore, married on 10 May 1997 and residing separately since February 1998, with a male child born on 2 June 1998. The appellant-husband alleged cruelty and desertion as grounds, but the trial court dismissed the petition and the Himachal Pradesh High Court declined to pass a decree of divorce. In this Court’s proceedings, the matter was directed to mediation, and the appellant was asked to deposit Rs. 10 lakh before the Court as permanent alimony and maintenance for the child. The appellant complied, and the respondent filed an affidavit consenting to divorce, stating that the divorce be granted by mutual consent and that the deposited amount should be paid to her for permanent alimony and for maintenance of the minor son. Considering the protracted strained relationship, the judgments of the lower courts were set aside, and in exercise of Article 142 of the Constitution, the marriage was dissolved by mutual consent. The Rs. 10 lakh deposited in Court is to be invested in the name of the minor son in a Nationalized Bank, with the respondent allowed to withdraw yearly interest for the child’s welfare. No costs were awarded, and the judgment reflects the Court’s effort to render justice through settlement.

Provisions of Law Cited

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, s.13Constitution of India, 1950, Art. 142

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Animus deserendi (legal maxim)
Mutual consent doctrine (divorce by mutual consent)
Power under Article 142 to render justice in extraordinary circumstances

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellant contends that the marriage has long been strained due to cruelty and desertion by the respondent, justifying a decree of divorce under Section 13 Hindu Marriage Act. Despite years of hostility and non-resumption of matrimonial life, the parties sought resolution by mutual consent in order to end the dispute and safeguard the interests of the child. The Court directed mediation and required a deposit of Rs. 10 lakh toward permanent alimony and maintenance; the appellant complied. He argues that, given the extended separation and mutual consent, dissolution of the marriage by mutual consent is the appropriate remedy and should be recognized to bring finality and reduce further litigation.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondent submits that she consents to divorce, denies the allegations of cruelty or desertion, and emphasizes the welfare of the minor son. In an affidavit, she states she is agreeable to divorce by mutual consent and that the Rs. 10 lakh deposited should be treated as permanent alimony and for maintenance of the child. She asserts that the court should end the dispute and safeguard the minor’s welfare, with the deposited funds invested for the child’s benefit and annual interest used for his maintenance.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## [2015] 2 S.C.R. 990 A ## RAJ KUMAR RANA v. ## RITA RATHORE 8 (Civil Appeal No. 6161 of 2010) MARCH 10, 2015 **[V. GOPALA GOWDA AND R. BANUMATHI,** JJ.] c - _Hindu Maniage Act, 1955: s.13 Divorce petition by_ - - _husband Dismissed by trial court and High Court_ - _Appeal Supreme Court directed appellant-husband to deposit_ Rs. _10 lacs_ - _On deposit of_ Rs. _1 o· lacs, parties[Respondent-wife filed ]_ 0 _[referred to Mediation Centre ]_[-] _affidavit expressing her consent for divorce and stated that the amount of_ Rs. _10 lacs deposited by appellant be paid to her_ as _permanent alimony and_ also as _maintenance of the minor_ son - _Pursuant to the affidavit filed by the_ E _respondent-wife and taking into consideration the strained relationship between the parties for long time, judgments of both the courts below_ set aside - _In order to render justice_ between _the parties, in_ exercise _of power u/Article 142 of the Constitution of India, the maniage_ between _the_ F _appellant and the respondent dissolved by mutual consent_ - _Amount of_ Rs. _10 lacs lying in Court be invested in the name of minor_ son _represented by the respondent in any_ one _of the Nationalized Bank_ as _per the choice of the_ - _respondent till_ he _attains majority The respondent_ is G _permitted to withdraw the periodical interest accrued thereon once in_ a _year directly from the bank and the_ same _shall_ be _utilized for the_ welfare _of the minor_ son - _Constitution of India, 1950 -Article 142._ H 990 RAJ KUMAR RANA v. RITA RATHORE 991 .CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION :Civil Appeal No. 6161 of 2010 From the Judgment and Order dated 10 .11.2008 of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla in F.A. 0. No. 266 of 2004. B Harpreet Singh, Rajesh Gupta, Pratap Venugopal, K. J. John & Co. for the Appeallant. Ms. Radhika Gautam, E. C. Agrawala for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by **R. BANUMATHI,** J. 1. This appeal arises out of the judgment dated 10.11.2008 passed by the High Court of D Himachal Pradesh at Shimla in FAO (HMA) No.266/2004, dismissing the appellant's appeal and declining to pass the decree of divorce. 2. Marriage between the appellant-husband and E respondent-wife was solemnized on 10.5.1997 and both of them resided together as husband and wife for about nine months. Case of the appellant is that both parties were employed in District Hospital at different places. Appellant was transferred to District Hospital, Solan, Himachal F Pradesh and he started living at Solan. By their joint efforts, they were able to get the respondent transferred to Solan. The respondent-wife became pregnant and she went to her parents house at Nirsu in Rampur, Himachal Pradesh. Case of the appellant is that in February 1998, respondentG wife left Solan for delivery at her parents house at Rampur and thereafter she never came back and never stayed with the appellant. Parties are said to have separated since February 1998 and a male child was born out of _their_ wedlock at Rampur on 2.6.1998. Appellant alleged that H 992 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015) 2 S.C.R. - A despite his request, respondent continued to stay with her child at her parents house at Nirsu in Rampur. lnspite of being transferred to Solan, respondent refused to join the appellant at Solan and instead she got herself adjusted at IGMC Shimla. According to the appellant-husband, when B he requested the respondent-wife to part ways by mutual consent, respondent and her parents demanded Rs.10,00,000/- as maintenance. The appellant filed petition for divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act against the respondent on the ground of cruelty and C desertion. Vide its judgment dated 2.1.2003, District Judge, Solan dismissed the petition both on grounds of cruelty and. desertion. Regarding desertion, trial court observed that parties have strained relations for long time and are residing 0[separately ][on ][account of exigencies of their services and ] not on account of hostilities and there was no _animus deserendi_ on the part of the respondent in living separate. The appellant preferred appeal before the High Court and vide its judgment dated 10.11.2008, the High Court E dismissed the appeal. In this appeal, the appellant challenges the correctness of the dismissal of his divorce petition. 3. Vide order dated 25.6.2014, while referring the F parties to mediation, this Court has asked the appellant whether he will be willing to deposit a sum of Rs.10,00,000/ - before this Court by way of permanent alimony as well as maintenance for the male child from the marriage. Learned counsel for appellanUhusband submitted that the G sum of Rs.10,00,000/- will be deposited within six weeks from the date of the order. As per the order, commencement of mediation was made conditional on deposit of Rs.10,00,000/-. In compliance with the direction of t~is Court, the appellant has deposited a sum of Rs.10,00,000/ H -. The parties were referred to the Mediation Centre at # RAJ KUMAR RANA v. RITA RATHORE 993 [R. BANUMATHI, J.] Shimla. To enable the respondent-wife to travel to Shimla, A a further amount of Rs.25,000/- was paid to the respondentwife by way of demand draft. 4. Expressing her consent for divorce and stating that the amount of Rs.10,00,000/- deposited by the appellant s in this Court be paid to her as permanent alimony and also as maintenance of the minor son, the respondent has filed affidavit. In the affidavit, the respondent has stated as under:- c "It is most humbly submitted that in the interest of my son and overall bringing an end to the disputes, I am agreeable for a Divorce. However all the allegations/ contentions raised in Divorce Petition and the present Special Leave Petition are denied. The Appellant has o made bald and false allegations in these Petitions. In these circumstances, this Hon'ble Court may protect the interest of the Respondent herein by recording that the Divorce is being granted by mutual consent and accordingly pass appropriate orders in the interest of E justice." 5. Pursuant to the affidavit filed by the respondent-wife, taking into consideration that the relationship between the parties are strained for quite a long time, judgments of both F the courts below are set aside and this appeal is allowed. In order to render justice between the parties, in exercise of oL•r power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, the marriage between the appellant and the respondent is dissolved by mutual consent. The amount of Rs.10,00,000/ G - lying in this Court's deposit be invested in the name of minor son represented by the respondent in any one of the Nationalized Bank as per the choice of the respondent till he attains majority. The respondent is permitted to withdraw the periodical interest accrued thereon once in a year H ## 994 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ## [2015] 2 S.C.R. A directly from the bank and the same shall be utilized for the welfare of the minor son. No costs. Copy of this judgment shall be sent to the District Judge, Solan, H.P. Devika Gujral Appeal allowed.