Non-Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Civil Appeal No. 5696 of 2021
(@ SLP (C) No.11747 of 2017)
SUBHRANSU SARKAR
.... Appellant(s)
Versus
INDRANI SARKAR (NEE DAS)
…. Respondent (s)
O R D E R
Leave granted.
1. The Appellant married the Respondent on 02.03.1997 and
registered the same under the Special Marriage Act, 1954.
Thereafter, the marriage was solemnized between the parties on
07.12.2000 under the Hindu rites and customs. Alleging cruelty and
desertion by the Respondent, the appellant filed a suit for dissolution
of marriage on 05.03.2007 before the District Judge, Alipore. The
suit was dismissed, aggrieved by which the Appellant filed an appeal
before the High Court of Calcutta. The Respondent did not appear
before the High Court. However, the High Court dismissed the
appeal filed by the appellant upholding the judgment of the Trial
Court. The allegation made by the Appellant against the
Respondent is that she was insisting on his residing separately from
1 | P a g e
his parents. Also, the Respondent misbehaved with her in-laws and
that she was frequently leaving the matrimonial home. The
appellant also alleged physical assault by the Respondent when both
of them went to Puri and Shillong for holidays. The Respondent
resisted the Petition filed for dissolution of marriage by denying the
averments made against her. She accused the appellant of adultery
and excessive consumption of alcohol. The Trial Court and the High
Court refused to accept the contentions of the appellant that he is
entitled for divorce by holding that he could not make out a case of
cruelty meted out by the Respondent.
2. It was submitted by Mr. Nikhil Nayyar, learned Senior Counsel
for the Appellant that the Appellant and Respondent have been living
separately for more than 16 years and for all practical purposes the
marriage is dead. He relied upon two judgments of this Court in
Sukhendu Das v. Rita Mukherjee
1
and Munish Kakkar v.
Nidhi Kakkar
2
in support of his submission that this Court in
exercise of its power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India
has dissolved marriages when they are totally unworkable and
irretrievable.
3. We have requested Mr. Ranjan Mukherjee to assist this Court
as Amicus Curiae on behalf of the Respondent as she did not engage
an Advocate. Mr. Ranjan Mukherjee informed this Court that the
1 (2017) 9 SCC 632
2 (2020) 14 SCC 657
2 | P a g e
Respondent intends to continue to live with the Appellant. Mr.
Mukherjee informed this Court that he spoke to the Respondent
several times and the Respondent is not convinced that an
unworkable marriage should be put to an end. In Sukhendu Das
v. Rita Mukherjee (supra), this Court considered a similar situation
where the marriage between the parties took place on 19.06.1992
and they were living apart from the year 2000. The Trial Court found
that the husband could not prove cruelty by his wife and that he was
not entitled for decree of divorce. The judgment of the Trial Court
was upheld by the High Court and the same was the subject matter
of challenge before this Court. The Respondent failed to appear
before this Court in spite of notice being served. By holding that
there was an irretrievable breakdown of marriage, this Court
dissolved the marriage between the parties therein by observing that
they had been living separately for more than 17 years and no useful
purpose would be served by compelling them to live together in
matrimony.
4. To do complete justice between the parties, this Court in
Munish Kakkar v. Nidhi Kakkar (supra) put an end to the bitter
matrimonial dispute which lingered on for two decades between the
parties therein.
5. The Appellant is a police officer in the State of West Bengal
and has made allegation of cruelty and desertion against the
3 | P a g e
Respondent. Though the respondent has insisted that she intends to
live with the Appellant, no meaningful effort has been made by her
for reconciliation. Allegations made by the Respondent relate to
adultery by the Appellant which was the reason for her moving out of
the matrimonial home. In spite of the best efforts made by Mr.
Mukherjee, the Respondent has insisted that she is not willing for
dissolution of the marriage. Mr. Mukherjee has brought to our notice
that the Respondent has to take care of her son who is suffering from
serious ailments.
6. Having scrutinized the material on record and considering
the submissions made by Mr. Nikhil Nayyar and Mr. Ranjan
Mukherjee, learned Amicus Curiae, without commenting on the
merits of the matter, the marriage between the parties is
emotionally dead and there is no point in persuading them to live
together any more. Therefore, this is a fit case for exercise of
jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India. The
marriage between the parties is dissolved. The Registry is directed
to prepare a decree accordingly. Taking note of the submissions
made by Mr. Ranjan Mukherjee, we direct the Appellant to pay an
amount of Rs.25 Lakhs (Rupees Twenty-Five Lakhs) to the
Respondent within a period of eight weeks from today. The petition
filed by the Respondent under Section 125 Cr. PC for maintenance
shall be withdrawn by the Respondent on receipt of the amount of
4 | P a g e
Rs.25 Lakhs. The payment of the aforesaid amount is in full and final
settlement of all claims of the Respondent against the Appellant.
7. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
….............................J.
[L. NAGESWARA RAO]
..……......................J.
[ B.R. GAVAI ]
New Delhi,
September 14, 2021.
5 | P a g e
