The couple R. Srinivas Kumar and R. Shametha had been residing separately for 22 years due to differences after marrying in 1993. The family court refused a divorce citing irretrievable breakdown of marriage. The Supreme Court ruled that the facts established irretrievable breakdown and granted the divorce, ordering the husband to pay the wife Rs. 2,00,00,000 as permanent alimony.
The couple R. Srinivas Kumar and R. Shametha had been residing separately for 22 years due to differences after marrying in 1993. The family court refused a divorce citing irretrievable breakdown of marriage. The Supreme Court ruled that the facts established irretrievable breakdown and granted the divorce, ordering the husband to pay the wife Rs. 2,00,00,000 as permanent alimony.
The couple R. Srinivas Kumar and R. Shametha had been residing separately for 22 years due to differences after marrying in 1993. The family court refused a divorce citing irretrievable breakdown of marriage. The Supreme Court ruled that the facts established irretrievable breakdown and granted the divorce, ordering the husband to pay the wife Rs. 2,00,00,000 as permanent alimony.
R. Srinivas Kumar v. R.Shametha(Civil Appeal No. 4696 of 2013) (Hindu Marriage act 1955). FACTS: The couple named R. Srinivas Kumar and R. Shametha both were residing separately for the last 22 years due to difference of opinion between them after their marriage on 9 may 1993. The appellant-Husband and the Respondent-wife have been residing separately ad all efforts of them continuing the marriage have failed and there is no possibility of re-union because of the strained relations. Thus, it appears that the marriage between the Appellant ad the Respondent has irretrievably broken down. The family court has refused to pass a decree for divorce on the grounds of irretrievable breakdown of marriage. ISSUES: Whether the facts of the case are important to provide a ground for divorce? JUDGEMENT: The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India on 4 October, 2019, by the Divisional bench of Justice Banerjee and Justice Shah allowed the application for Divorce filled by the Appellant- Husband for dissolution of marriage. Further bringing into consideration the judgement in Naveen Kohli case the courts while exercising the powers of Article 142 of Constitution of India and on the condition that the Husband shall pay to the wife a lump sum of Rs. 2000000, as permanent alimony the application of Divorce has been allowed. Thus, the court while protecting the interest of the Respondent has allowed the application of the appellant.