Bengaluru:Karnataka High Court recently granted divorce to a couple who lived separately for a period of 21 years after observing that "the marriage is totally dead" and that nothing would be gained by trying to keep the parties tied forever to a marriage that in fact has ceased to exist.
A division bench of Justice B. Veerapa and Justice K. S. Hemalekha said, "Once the parties have separated and the separation has continued for a sufficient length of time of more than 21 years and one of them presented a petition for divorce, it can well be presumed that the marriage has broken down."
It added, "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 in law of the unworkable marriage which has long ceased to be effective are bound to be a source of greater misery for the parties."
Read: Divorce not excuse for father to ignore marriage expense of daughters: Delhi HC
A division bench said that it is a fit case to grant a decree of divorce. Accordingly, it set aside the trial court order and granted divorce to the couple. It directed the husband to pay permanent alimony 30 lakhs to the respondent/wife, within a period of four months. The couple who is 56 years old had married in the year 1999.
The husband claimed that the same year the wife withdrew herself from his company and went to her parent's home. Even after several requests made by him and other family members she has not returned home. Therefore in the year 2003, he filed a petition under section 13 (1) (1b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, seeking divorce on the ground of desertion.
The Family Court passed an ex-parte order granting divorce in 2004 and following which the husband married for a second time and has two children. The wife challenged the same before the High Court which allowed her petition for divorce before the Family Court. In 2012, the petition filed by the husband seeking divorce was dismissed. The husband challenged this order before the High Court.
