Shwetabh Vikram Gupta vs Priyanka Gupta

N.K. Chandravanshi, J

This appeal is preferred against the judgment and decree dated 4-4-2019 passed by the 2nd Addl. District Judge, Family Court, Raipur in Civil Suit HMA No. 156-A/2013, CIS No. 1183/2013 ( Shwetabh Vikram Gupta -v- Priyanka Gupta) whereby divorce petition filed by the appellant/husband (hereinafter referred to as “husband”) under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act, 1955”) against the respondent/wife (hereinafter referred to as “wife”) was dismissed.

1.a It is pertinent to mention here that initially the divorce petition was filed in the Family Court, Varanasi (UP), subsequently pursuant to order dated 4-2-2013 passed by the Supreme Court in Transfer Petition (Civil) No. 1088/2012 the case was transferred from Family Court, Varanasi to the Fam ily Court, Raipur. Thereafter, the case was heard and decided by the Family Court, Raipur.

Brief facts of the case are that marriage between parties was solemnized on 14-2-2009 and they have been blessed with a son. It is alleged that after few months of marriage, behaviour of wife became cruel towards husband and she also avoided his company and physical relation with him. She used to taunt petitioner’s personality that he is fat and looks like aged person and not of her liking. She always appreciates other members of family like father of husband, his brother and his sister’s husband, further she used to say that on being kissed by her father-in-law, she felt great pleasure and enjoyed and had always said that she will like to live with her father-in-law separately in the same house. On being opposed by the husband, she used to go to her parental home at Raipur. It is further stated that she avoided to talk on phone with the husband but like to talk with her father-in-law and her other male friends. She always insulted, humiliated and avoided him which creates immense mental cruelty to him. Such conduct of wife shows that she does not want to lead marital life with husband, rather she want to live in her parental place at Raipur and lead independent life. It is further alleged that wife always makes false allegation on the husband, his mother, elder brother and his sister-in-law (Bhabhi) and thus, she created most uncongenial atmosphere in the family. She used to provoke father of husband which created difference between husband’s father and mother. On 10-3-2012 she left company of husband without any reason and thereafter, she is residing in her parental place. Thus, she deprived husband from marital pleasure, which also amounts to cruelty to him. When husband went to meet his newly born son, she did not permit to meet him and also did not allow him to take photograph of the son. It is further alleged that when she came to know about filing of divorce petition by him, then she threatened him on phone that if he would not withdraw the divorce petition, then she will send them to jail in dowry harassment case, thereafter she lodged FIR of dowry harassment case in Mahila police station, Raipur against husband, his mother, brother and sister-in-law. It is further stated that during 3 years and 4 months of their married life, wife lived with husband for only 13 months in all which also amounts to cruelty towards him. Thus, now it is very difficult to continue the relationship between them. Hence, it is prayed that their marriage may be dissolved by a decree of divorce.

In reply, wife has denied all the allegations leveled against her and pleaded that she has never insulted or humiliated husband, rather she was always affectionate towards him and always take care of his respect on every count. It is contended by the wife that it was told prior to their marriage that husband has got education in California (USA) and has done special course in Economics from London School of Economics, despite that, wife of elder brother of husband told her that he has no will power to take any decision on his own. After marriage she came to know that his up-bringing and brought up was under scary atmosphere. Since husband himself was not being regarded by his family members, therefore, wife was also kept there in so called strict discipline. Even she was not permitted to have mobile phone with her and various other restrictions were imposed upon her, whereas her sister-in-law (Jethani) was free from such impositions. Husband also used to follow instructions of his elder brother and his wife. They also used to provoke husband so that divorce may be affected between them and they (Jeth & Jethani) may grab all their properties. Elder brother of husband is a known builder and they have huge house and property at Banaras, but no right was given to husband in that property, whereas those properties are their ancestral properties. Knowing their such intention, father-in-law of wife used to support her, therefore, such disgusting allegations have been leveled against them. It is further stated that on 10-3-2012 when wife came from her matrimonial house, then husband himself had come to leave them at Railway Station of Banaras, at that time, her sister-in-law (Jethani) had told her not to return, they will send divorce paper to her. Husband also never tried to bring her back otherwise she is still ready to lead marital life with him. She has further pleaded that if interference of her sister-in-law (Jethani), brother-in-law and mother-in-law in their life is restrained, then their marital life may go well. Thus, since all the allegations are false and fabricated, hence petition filed by the husband may be dismissed.

On the basis of rival pleadings of both the parties, learned Family Court framed 3 issues, mainly of cruelty, afforded opportunity to adduce evidence to the parties and after considering evidence, it dismissed the petition filed by the husband holding that he has failed to prove cruelty meted out to him by the wife, hence he is not entitled for a decree of divorce. Hence, this appeal.

Learned Sr. Counsel Dr. N.K. Shukla assisted by Shri Sumit Singh, and Sushri Priya Mishra, Adv. appearing for the husband, would submit that attitude of wife towards husband was not well after few months of marriage, as she used to taunt him that he is fat and looks like aged person. She also compared his personality with her father-in-law, and other male members of their family for making such remarks / taunt. Making such remarks by wife against husband itself causes immense mental torture to the husband. It is further contended that wife used to level false allegations against husband and his family members, and she also used to provoke her father-in-law, therefore, his relation also became sore with other family members. She also used to say offending /objectionable things about her father-in-law which was unbearable to the husband. It is further submitted that false and baseless facts mentioned by the wife against husband in her statement itself amounts to cruelty against husband.

Referring to notice Ex. P-3, P-4 and P-5, learned Sr. counsel appearing for husband would submit that the wife had lodged FIR in respect of dowry harassment against husband, his brother and other family members, which also amounts to cruelty against husband. Referring to the reply filed by the wife, learned Sr. Counsel submits that wife has made various statement in her deposition without any pleading. Rather, she has levelled allegation against her brother -in-law (Jeth), sister-in-law (Jethani) and mother-in-law, but she has not made any allegation against husband, whereas cruelty has to be caused by spouse. In the instant case, there is no allegation against husband, despite that wife has left his company since about 10 years. Hence, there is no possibility between them for resuming their normal marital life, even though, the wife is willing to join appellant / husband. It is lastly contended by learned Sr. counsel that wife has left company of husband since 10-3-2012 without any sufficient cause and residing in her parental place. Thus, they are living apart since about 10 years. This fact itself shows that their marriage has been irretrievably broken. But learned family Court without appreciating aforesaid evidence has dismissed the petition of husband, hence the appeal may be allowed and decree may be granted.

Per contra, learned Sr. Counsel Shri Prafull Bharat, assisted by Shri Keshav Dewangan, Adv. appearing for the wife would submit that decree has been sought by the husband on the ground of cruelty, desertion and adultery, but as per pleading of appellant himself, wife has left his company on 10-3-2012 whereas instant divorce petition was filed by the husband on 2-7-2012, whereas as per section 13(1)(ib) of the Act of 1955, divorce petition may be filed after desertion for a continuous period of not less than two years, hence ground of desertion is not made out. So far as allegation of adultery is concerned, respondent has not adduced any evidence to substantiate this ground. More over whatever conduct of the wife has been alleged for in this regard, is not sufficient to prove adultery as has been mentioned in Section 13(1)(i) of the Act, of 1955. Hence, husband has utterly failed to prove aforesaid two grounds.

It is further submitted by learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the wife that, the party seeking decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty is bound to prove cruelty meted out to him/her by the rival spouse. In this regard, husband has leveled various allegations against wife in his petition, but those allegations were not stated in complaint dated 6-7-2012 made to the D.I.G. of Police, Varanasi by husband against the wife (Ex. P-1/P-6), further no whisper about allegation of cruelty meted out to the husband by wife were stated by husband himself in his complaint Ex. P-8 in Istgasha No. 3093 filed in the Court of Judicial Magistrate (First), Varanasi nor in their statement recorded in that case. He would further submit that wife has not lodged any FIR in respect of dowry harassment against husband and his family members, only sending notice by Mahila police station, Raipur to them in respect of complaint made by wife cannot be termed as cruelty by the wife towards husband. Appellant Swetabh Vikram Gupta has admitted in his deposition that his mother has made complaint under Domestic Violence Act against his father, but also in that complaint no allegation has been made against respondent wife, which would have been done if she (wife) would have provoked her father-in-law as has been alleged in the petition. Husband has further admitted in his cross-examination that there is a property dispute in their family since 15 years i.e. prior to their marriage. Despite that, it has been alleged against the wife that dispute started because of her. It is further submitted that no act of cruelty as has been leveled against wife by the husband, has been proved, hence learned trial Court has not committed any error in dismissing the petition of husband. The impugned judgment and decree passed by learned Family Court is well merited which does not call for any interference by this Court. Hence the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned judgment and record of the court below.

At the outset, it is pertinent to mention here that, while advancing submissions learned Sr. counsel for both the parties contended, in such a manner that, the instant divorce petition has been filed by the appellant on ground of desertion and adultery by the wife, but instant petition has not been filed by appellant on both these grounds. More over in this regard, provisions of Section 13(1)(i) and (ib) of the Act of 1955 is apt to be reproduced here which reads thus :-

“13. Divorce.—(1) Any marriage solemnized, whether before or after the commencement of this Act, may, on a petition presented by either the husband or the wife, be dissolved by a decree of divorce on the ground that the other party—

(i) has, after the solemnization of the marriage, had voluntary sexual intercourse with any person other than his or her spouse; or

(i-a) … … …

(i-b) has deserted the petitioner for a continuous period of not less than two years immediately preceding the presentation of the petition; or]

… … …

… … …

Explanation. —In this sub-section, the expression “desertion” means the desertion of the petitioner by the other party to the marriage without reasonable cause and without the consent or against the wish of such party, and includes the wilful neglect of the petitioner by the other party to the marriage, and its grammatical variations and cognate expressions shall be construed accordingly.”

Provisions of aforesaid section would show that for seeking a decree of divorce on ground of desertion, it is necessary that respondent has deserted the petitioner for a continuous period of not less than 2 years immediately preceding the presentation of the petition. It is the case of the husband himself that wife left his company on 10-3-2012, thereafter she did not return to her matrimonial house and instant petition was filed by the husband on 2-7-2012 which is very much less than 2 years, hence ground of desertion against the wife for granting decree of divorce in favour of the husband is not made out at all, as period prescribed for filing petition for granting decree of divorce on ground of desertion is not completed in instant case.

So far as allegation of adultery against the wife is concerned, although appellant/husband has alleged her chastity with her father-in-law, but nature of allegation as has been pleaded cannot be equated with the wording used in Section 13(1)(i) of the Act of 1955 for alleged act. Therefore, even if the alleged conduct / gesture as has been stated by the husband against the wife, has been practised which might be objectionable, but only because of such conduct or gesture, it cannot be held that those persons have any relation of voluntary sexual intercourse. Hence submission of learned Sr. counsel for the wife that this petition is filed on ground of adultery is also not found to be sustainable.

In fact, instant divorce petition has been filed by husband on the ground of alleged cruelty meted out to him by the wife. In this regard, he has reiterated his pleadings in his deposition. He has stated in his deposition that after few months of marriage, she was not cooperative with him. She praises other male members of their family and insulted and humiliated him by saying him that he is fatty and looks like aged person. She used to say that she felt pleasure when her father-in-law kissed her and she wants to live with him in the same house separately. She indulged late night on talking in phone with her male friends and her father-in-law. It is further alleged that wife used to provoke her father-in-law, therefore, difference is created between mother and father of husband and quarrel started in their family. It is alleged that the wife leveled allegation against husband that he always follow instructions of his brother and Bhabhi, he works like their puppet and he himself could not take any decision. Further she lodged false case of dowry harassment in Mahila police station, Raipur against husband, his brother Shashwat Gupta, mother Poonam Gupta and Bhabhi Anjali Gupta. Appellant has examined R. Rajiwan as A.W. 2 to support his case. This witness is an employee of their business/house.

He has substantively supported statement of appellant.

Respondent/wife has denied all the allegation leveled against her in her pleading and deposition. Ex. P-1/P-6 is complaint made by husband to the D.I.G., Police Varanasi against the wife. This complaint was made on 6-7-2012 i.e. after 4 days of filing of divorce petition by him, but in this complaint he has leveled allegations against wife only that her conduct towards him is non-cooperative, neglectful and cruel. In this complaint, appellant has stated that his father is provoking wife. There is no whisper of alleged misconduct or misbehaviour of wife in the aforesaid complaint, as has been mentioned in the divorce petition. This fact does not make trustworthy, the statement of appellant/ husband and his witnesses about alleged misconduct and misbehaviour of wife.

Appellant Shwetabh Gupta (A.W. 1) has admitted in his cross-examination para 14 that he took decision of taking divorce from wife between the period 10-3-2012 to July, 2012. He has further admitted that till 10-3-2012 (the day when wife lastly came from her matrimonial home to her parental home) he had no idea to take divorce. All the substantive allegations leveled by him against respondent wife are of prior to 10-3-2012. If conduct and behaviour of wife was such as has been alleged by him, then he would not have any confusion prior to 10-3-2012 about taking divorce from the wife, but his non-thinking about taking divorce till 10-3-2012 also makes doubtful the allegations leveled by him against the respondent/wife.

Appellant/husband has admitted in his cross-examination that he does not know the name of persons whom the wife used to talk over phone, he has also not filed any call details in this regard. Hence such baseless allegation leveled by him against wife that she always indulged in talking over phone with her male friends, is also not found to be believable.

Ex. P-7 and P-8 are copy of various documents of criminal case (Ishtgasha No. 3093/2012) which was filed on 2-8-2012 by appellant Swetabh Gupta against his father Shardul Vikram Gupta and others for the offence under Section 452, 323, 504, 506, 352, 364, 385, 386 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code in the Court of Judicial Magistrate (First), Varanasi, Ex. P-9 is copy of various documents of Civil Suit No. 756/2013 filed by Shardul Vikram Gupta (appellant’s father) Vs. Kalpdrum Limited and others. These documents contain statement of appellant husband, his elder brother Shashwat Gupta and mother Smt. Poonam Gupta. These documents show that there were property disputes between father of appellant and his two sons including appellant and his mother. In those statements they have not stated anything that the wife has provoked her father-in-law. Further Ex. P-10 is a complaint made by mother (Poonam Gupta) of appellant against her husband to S.H.O. Police Station Lanka (UP ) on 30-8-2012. In this complaint, mother of appellant has stated that since last 15 years, her husband is under influence of some bad elements and on being misled by them, he (husband of Poonam Gupta) is causing financial and social loss to them. She has not stated anything against respondent/wife herein that she has provoked or misled her father-in-law (Shardul Vikram Gupta). Appellant has further admitted in his cross-examination para 20 that his mother has not made any allegation against respondent herein, in complaint filed by her against his father under the Domestic Violence Act at Varanasi. If respondent /wife would have created any dispute in their house by provoking / misleading her father-in-law, then these facts would invariably be brought in those statements/ documents, but not making such statements against respondent wife in those proceedings, shows leveling false allegation against her that due to her, quarrel / dispute started in their family. Rather Ex. P-10 and admission made by the appellant husband in cross-examination para 31 shows that property dispute in the family was existed prior to their marriage.

Facts of the case as has been brought on record shows that affairs of business were managed by elder brother of appellant and opinion of appellant was not that much effective as of his elder brother. It also seems that various restrictions were imposed upon the respondent wife in her matrimonial home which were not strictly effective on her Jethani. In a joint family, person leading the family / business always has much regard then other members. In such a situation, thinking of wife about her husband that he must also be given weightage in the family and so also thinking about upliftment of status of husband in the family, cannot be termed as cruelty to the husband by the wife.

Wife has specifically denied that she has ever insulted or humiliated her husband on her personality, although she has admitted in her cross-examination that there was no quarrel with her mother-in-law and Jethani, but she has stated that they did not like her. Appellant has not filed any document like FIR, charge sheet etc. to prove the fact that the wife has lodged dowry harassment case against him and his family members. Although he has filed Ex. P-3, P-4 and P-5 which are notices given by Mahila Thana, Raipur to appellant husband and his family members in respect of complaint made by the wife, but only giving such notice cannot be termed as lodging dowry harassment case. The wife has deposed that she has not filed any criminal case against the appellant and his family members. Thus, this allegation against the wife is also not found to be correct.

In the case of Chetan Das Vs. Kamla Devi [(2001) 4 SCC 250 while considering issue with respect to mental cruelty by one spouse against another, the Apex Court has observed as under :-

“14. Matrimonial matters are matters of delicate human and emotional relationship. It demands mutual trust, regard, respect, love and affection with sufficient play for reasonable adjustments with the spouse. The relationship has to conform to the social norms as well. The matrimonial conduct has now come to be governed by statute framed, keeping in view such norms and changed social order. It is sought to be controlled in the interest of the individuals as well as in broader perspective, for regulating matrimonial norms for making of a well-knit, healthy and not a disturbed and porous society…...”

In the case of Praveen Vs. Inderjit Mehta [(2002) 5 SCC 706] while dealing with provisions of Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Act of 1955, Hon’ble Supreme court has examined ‘mental cruelty’ and observed as under :-

“21. Cruelty for the purpose of Section 13(1)(i-a) is to be taken as a behaviour by one spouse towards the other, which causes reasonable apprehension in the mind of the latter that it is not safe for him or her to continue the matrimonial relationship with the other. Mental cruelty is a state of mind and feeling with one of the spouses due to the behaviour or behavioural pattern by the other. Unlike the case of physical cruelty, mental cruelty is difficult to establish by direct evidence. It is necessarily a matter of inference to be drawn from the facts and circumstances of the case. A feeling of anguish, disappointment and frustration in one spouse caused by the conduct of the other can only be appreciated on assessing the attending facts and circumstances in which the two partners of matrimonial life have been living. The inference has to be drawn from the attending facts and circumstances taken cumulatively. In case of mental cruelty it will not be a correct approach to take an instance of misbehaviour in isolation and then pose the question whether such behaviour is sufficient by itself to cause mental cruelty. The approach should be to take the cumulative effect of the facts and circumstances emerging from the evidence on record and then draw a fair inference whether the petitioner in the divorce petition has been subjected to mental cruelty due to conduct of the other.

In the case of Samar Ghosh Vs. Jaya Ghosh [(2007) 4 SCC 511] Hon’ble Supreme Court observed thus :-

“101. No uniform standard can ever be laid down for guidance, yet we deem it appropriate to enumerate some instances of human behaviour which may be relevant in dealing with the cases of “mental cruelty”. The instances indicated in the succeeding paragraphs are only illustrative and not exhaustive:

(i) On consideration of complete matrimonial life of the parties, acute mental pain, agony and suffering as would not make possible for the parties to live with each other could come within the broad parameters of mental cruelty.

(ii) On comprehensive appraisal of the entire matrimonial life of the parties, it becomes abundantly clear that situation is such that the wronged party cannot reasonably be asked to put up with such conduct and continue to live with other party.

(iii) Mere coldness or lack of affection cannot amount to cruelty, frequent rudeness of language, petulance of manner, indifference and neglect may reach such a degree that it makes the married life for the other spouse absolutely intolerable.

(iv) Mental cruelty is a state of mind. The feeling of deep anguish, disappointment, frustration in one spouse caused by the conduct of other for a long time may lead to mental cruelty.

(v) A sustained course of abusive and humiliating treatment calculated to torture, discommode or render miserable life of the spouse.

(vi) Sustained unjustifiable conduct and behaviour of one spouse actually affecting physical and mental health of the other spouse. The treatment complained of and the resultant danger or apprehension must be very grave, substantial and weighty.

(vii) Sustained reprehensible conduct, studied neglect, indifference or total departure from the normal standard of conjugal kindness causing injury to mental health or deriving sadistic pleasure can also amount to mental cruelty.

(viii) The conduct must be much more than jealousy, selfishness, possessiveness, which causes unhappiness and dissatisfaction and emotional upset may not be a ground for grant of divorce on the ground of mental cruelty.

(ix) Mere trivial irritations, quarrels, normal wear and tear of the married life which happens in day-to-day life would not be adequate for grant of divorce on the ground of mental cruelty.

(x) The married life should be reviewed as a whole and a few isolated instances over a period of years will not amount to cruelty. The ill conduct must be persistent for a fairly lengthy period, where the relationship has deteriorated to an extent that because of the acts and behaviour of a spouse, the wronged party finds it extremely difficult to live with the other party any longer, may amount to mental cruelty.

(xi) If a husband submits himself for an operation of sterilisation without medical reasons and without the consent or knowledge of his wife and similarly, if the wife undergoes vasectomy or abortion without medical reason or without the consent or knowledge of her husband, such an act of the spouse may lead to mental cruelty.

(xii) Unilateral decision of refusal to have intercourse for considerable period without there being any physical incapacity or valid reason may amount to mental cruelty.

(xiii) Unilateral decision of either husband or wife after marriage not to have child from the marriage may amount to cruelty.

(xiv) Where there has been a long period of continuous separation, it may fairly be concluded that the matrimonial bond is beyond repair. The marriage becomes a fiction though supported by a legal tie. By refusing to sever that tie, the law in such cases, does not serve the sanctity of marriage; on the contrary, it shows scant regard for the feelings and emotions of the parties. In such like situations, it may lead to mental cruelty.”

In Samar Ghosh case (supra) Hon’ble Supreme Court has further held that cruelty in one case may not amount to cruelty in another case and may depend upon social status, customs, tradition, religious belief, human values and value system.

In case of Ramchander Vs. Ananta [(2015 11 SCC 539] Hon’ble Supreme Court considering the ground of cruelty raised in an application filed by husband seeking divorce has held thus :-

“10. The expression “cruelty” has not been defined in the Hindu Marriage Act. Cruelty for the purpose of Section 13(1)(i-a) is to be taken as a behaviour by one spouse towards the other, which causes a reasonable apprehension in the mind of the latter that it is not safe for him or her to continue the matrimonial relationship with the other. Cruelty can be physical or mental. In the present case there is no allegation of physical cruelty alleged by the plaintiff. What is alleged is mental cruelty and it is necessarily a matter of inference to be drawn from the facts and circumstances of the case. It is settled law that the instances of cruelty are not to be taken in isolation but to take the cumulative effect of the facts and circumstances emerging from the evidence on record and then draw a fair inference whether the plaintiff has been subjected to mental cruelty due to conduct of the other spouse. In the decision in Samar Ghosh case [Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh, (2007) 4 SCC 511] this Court set out illustrative cases where inference of “mental cruelty” can be drawn and they are only illustrative and not exhaustive.”

In the light of aforesaid law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court, if we examine facts of instant case, we find that whatever conduct/ behaviour of wife has been alleged as cruelty by husband, is not found to be proved, rather respondent/wife has specifically stated in her pleading and deposition that if interference of her Jeth, Jethani and mother-in-law is restrained between them (appellant and respondent herein) then their marital life may go well. In the instant case, she has not leveled any humiliative or defamatory allegations against appellant and whatever allegations she has made, seems to be her pain, which she felt due to less importance given to her and her husband in their family. Hence, none of the alleged conduct or behaviour of the wife has been proved by the appellant to grant decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty.

Learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the husband heavily contended that both the parties are living separately since 10-3-2012, thus more than 10 years have passed and there is no possibility between them to retrieve their matrimonial bonding/ relation, hence he prayed that considering their long matrimonial breakdown, decree of divorce may be granted as after passing of such long period, expecting them to live together itself would be mental torture to one of the spouses who is not willing to go ahead in their matrimonial bonding. In this regard, he relied on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Durga Prasanna Tripathy Vs. Arundhati Tripathy [(2005 (7) SCC 353], Rishikesh Sharma Vs. Saroj Sharma [(2007) 2 SCC 263], K. Srinivas Rao Vs. D.A. Deepa [(2013) 5 SCC 226] and decision of this court dated 13-12-2021 in case of Santosh Singh Vs. Amita Singh dated 13-12-2021 FAM No. 154/2015.

In aforesaid case laws referred by learned Sr. counsel for the appellant, decree of divorce has been granted due to irretrievable breakdown of marriage between the parties, but the same is not a ground envisaged under Section 13 of the Act of 1955. Further both the parties seem to be of good family background, they have one son also who is presently aged about 11-12 years. Perusal of photograph Article A-1 to A-8 shows that relation between the parties was well and cordial even after birth of their son. Husband himself had not thought for taking divorce till 10-3-2012. Wife has specifically stated that on 10-3-2012 when she was coming from her matrimonial home then her Jethani had told her by calling on mobile, not to return and divorce papers will be sent to her, whereas she is still ready to lead marital life with appellant. Appellant has not stated anything to show that he has ever tried to bring her back. Statement of respondent wife shows that their marital life may go well if unnecessary interference of her mother-in-law, Jeth and Jethani is stopped between them. Not leveling any humiliating or defamatory allegation against appellant by her shows her willingness to lead marital life with appellant. Hence, considering overall facts situation of the case, we are not inclined to grant decree of divorce also on the ground of their long living apart, as has been prayed by learned Sr. Counsel for the appellant. Other ground raised by the appellant has also not been proved. Therefore, the impugned judgment does not call for any interference of this Court.

So far as granting maintenance to the wife is concerned, both the parties have filed their affidavits in respect of their property / assets and liabilities. As per statement of appellant in cross-examination para 11, they have huge house at Banaras along with servant quarters, Goushala, gardan/Bagicha. As per affidavit of respondent wife, house is spread in 75,000 sq.ft. Affidavit also shows that family of appellant has also various companies namely Shri S.K. Farms and Greenland Pvt. Ltd., Kalpdrum Ltd., Swetabh Investment Pvt. Ltd. and Ace Media Advertisers Pvt. Ltd. although he has stated that he is non-salaried and non-working director of aforesaid companies which are owned by his father and other family members. He is also involved in textile business.

On the other hand, as per affidavit of respondent-wife her monthly income was Rs. 40,833/- and she is running hostel business which is said to be gifted by her father.

In the matter of Rajnesh Vs. Neha and another [(2021) 2 SCC 324], their Lordships of the Supreme Court held that maintenance amount awarded must be reasonable and realistic and avoid either of the two extremes i.e. maintenance awarded to the wife should neither be so extravagant which becomes oppressive and unbearable for the respondent, nor should it be so meager that it drives the wife of penury.

Considering the social and financial status of both the parties, which is apparent from record and assets & liabilities as they have shown in their respective affidavits, we deem it proper to grant Rs. 50,000/- monthly maintenance to the wife which shall be paid by the appellant/husband from the date of passing of the impugned order by the Family Court i.e. 4-4-2019. Such amount would be paid by 10th days of each month.

In view of above discussion, we are of the considered opinion that there is no merit in this appeal. Hence, the same deserves to be and is hereby dismissed.

A decree be drawn accordingly.