Ajay Kumar Rathee Vs. Seema Rathee SC as on 10 March 2022
SC taken note of Sukhendu Das V. Rita 1Sivasankaran V. anthimeenal, C.A. No.4984-4985 5 Mukherjee 2, in which it is concluded that it is not open for the wife to contend that unless both parties consent, the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India for dissolving a marriage may not be appropriate.
We are unequivocally of the view that nothing really subsists in this marriage except mutual accrimony. It is not even possible for the parties to sit across the table or to even talk over telephone to come to a reasonable understanding. There remains no doubt about irretrievable breakdown of marriage in the facts of the present case. Thus, we are inclined to exercise our jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India by granting a decree of divorce on the said ground.
In so far as the daughter’s expenses for education and marriage are concerned, it appears from her approach that she does not want to maintain any relationship with the appellant and is about 20 years of age. She is entitled to 8 choose her own path but then cannot demand from the appellant the amount towards the education. We, thus, hold that the daughter is not entitled to any amount but while determining the amount to be paid as permanent alimony to the respondent, we are still taking care to see that if the respondent so desires to support the daughter, funds are available.
