Judgment

Leave granted.

1. The parties have been litigating in one Forum or the other since the year 2005 and as of today twelve cases of various types are pending, some filed by the appellant and the others by the respondent-husband. The disputes have finally been/settled between the parties and a compromise deed has been put on record on page 164 of the paper book. Under this compromise the respondent-husband has agreed to pay a sum of `2,25,00,000/- (Rupees two crores and twenty five lakhs) to the appellant as full and final settlement of all disputes with the clear understanding that all litigations pending between them (civil and criminal) will terminate. Pursuant to the compromise the respondent-husband has paid a sum of Rupees Seventy five lakhs vide bank draft dated 29th August, 2011 and another sum of Rupees Seventy five lakhs has also been paid to day in Court by a ‘Pay Order’ (No.137954) of Standard chartered Bank dated 30th August, 2011 whereas a post-dated cheque (No.105860) dated 11th September, 2011 has also been handed over to the appellant in Court today.

(After referring to various decisions on the point, the Supreme Court in Manish Goel v. Rohini Goel (2010 (2) KLJ 337) held that waiver of statutory period of six months can be passed only by the Supreme Court in exercise of its power under Art. 142; however, the Apex Court generally does not pass such an order in contravention of or ignoring the statutory provisions, nor the power is exercised merely on sympathy. The law laid down in Manish Goel case was doubted by another division bench of the Apex Court in Neeti Malviya v. Rakesh Malviya (JT 2010 (6) SC 189::2010 ICO 606) and referred the question ‘whether the period prescribed in sub-section (2) of S.13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 can be waived or reduced by the Apex Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Art. 142 of the Constitution?’ for the consideration of a bench of three judges vide judgment dated 12.05.2010. Both the above said decisions are not seen referred to in Priyanka Khanna v. Amit Khanna-Editor.)

2. Appellant states that she is satisfied with the payments she has received and she does not with to pursue the matter any further. The parties have also filed an application under S.13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking a dissolution of the marriage. In this application details of the various litigations pending between the parties have been set out in paragraph 12. These are reproduced below:

“12. That there have been the following proceedings with regard to the marriage between the parties prior to the filing of this petition.

(a) A criminal complaint under Sections 190/200, Cr.P.C. filed by the Respondent for taking cognizance in respect of offences under Sections 323/355/506/34, IPC filed on 2.6.2006 bearing Crl. Case No.938/1/06 pending disposal before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Patiala House, New Delhi.

(b) A petition under S.482, Cr.P.C. being Crl.M.C/No.1220/2008 pending before the High Court of New Delhi emanating from Crl. Case No.938/1/06.

(c) A criminal complaint under Sections 190/200, Cr.P.C. filed by the Respondent for taking cognizance in respect of offences under Sections 323/355/506/34, I.P.C. bearing Crl. Case No.12739/1/07 pending disposal before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Patiala House, New Delhi fixed for 14.11.2011.

(d) A petition under S.482, Cr.P.C. being Crl.M.C.No.3019/200S pending before the High Court of New Delhi emanating from Crl. Case No.12739/1/07.

(e) A case under Sections 279/337/323, I.P.C. bearing F.I.R. No.174/2007 lodged with Police Station Marg, New Delhi on the complaint of the petitioner fixed for 14.11.2011.

(f) An execution case titled as Ms. Priyanka Khanna v. Mr. Amit Khanna & Ors. Under the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 pending disposal before the Ms. Shivali Sharma, learned Metropolitan Magistrate. Tis Hazari, Delhi fixed for 1.12.2011.

(g) Petition under Sections 13(1)(