2000 INSC 1131
                                        SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

                                                  M. Aruna Kumari

                                                           Vs.

                                                A.V. Janardhana Rao

                                 (G Pattanaik, U Banerjee and N S Hegde JJ.)

                                                      19.10.2000

                                                       ORDER

1. On an application being filed by the respondent husband under Section 13(l-A)(i) of the Hindu
Marriage Act for dissolution of the marriage on the ground that there had been no cohabitation
between the spouses after the decree for judicial separation was passed on 23.12.1995 and the date
of application i.e. 28.12.1996, the learned trial Judge had dismissed the said application.

2. On an appeal being carried, the Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court considered the
entire evidence on record and came to hold that there has been no resumption of cohabitation
between the parties for a period of one year from the date of the decree for judicial separation and
accordingly granted the decree for divorce allowing the appeal. It is this judgment and order of the
Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court which is the subject- matter of challenge in this
special leave application.

3. Ms Amareswari, appearing for the petitioner wife vehemently contended that the evidence on
record has not been scrutinized at all by the High Court while sitting in appeal and therefore the
ultimate finding should not be binding on this Court and the matter could be remitted to the High
Court for reconsideration of the evidence on record. She also further stated that there is ample
evidence on record to indicate that the husband had visited the wife after the decree for judicial
separation and had been staying with her which falsifies the pleas of the husband that whenever he
had gone to the house of the wife he found the same to be locked. But, having examined the
impugned judgment and also the evidence which has been placed on record, we are unable to
persuade ourselves to come to a conclusion that the finding of the High Court can be said to be a
finding on no evidence. In that view of the matter, we see no justification for our interference with
the impugned judgment of the High Court in exercise of power under Article 136 of the
Constitution of India. Accordingly, this special leave application stands rejected.

4. While we are dismissing the special leave application, it is brought to our notice that the daughter
born out of the wedlock of the petitioner and the respondent husband has come of marriageable age
and the respondent had not taken any steps to get her married. The respondent was appearing in
person and to our query stated that he is an Auditor in the Office of the Principal Director General
of Audit, South Central Railway, Secunderabad and he gets an emolument of Rs. 10,000 per month
and that he had already served for more than 30 years. According to him, the daughter herself is
earning and therefore it is no obligation of the father to make any arrangement to get her married .
though he is willing to offer her his blessings. We think it appropriate that the respondent father
should make some provision, if not whole, for the performance of the marriage of his daughter. We
quantify the amount at Rs. 50,000 which the respondent should pay for his daughter's marriage. The
officer of the respondent be communicated the order of this Court directing him to deduct Rs. 5000
per month from the salary of the respondent for a period often months and send the same at the
address of the daughter, which the daughter will furnish to the controlling authority of the
respondent. Copy of this order be also communicated to the Principal Director General of Audit,
South Central Railway, Secunderabad immediately.