ORDER :

1. The marriage of the parties to this petition was solemnised at Bhopal (Madhya Pradesh) under the Special Marriage Act, 1954 (‘the Act of 1954’) on 23.03.2018. It is not in dispute that the parties had lastly lived together as husband and wife at Gurugram (Haryana).

2. On 29.09.2018, the respondent-husband filed a petition for annulment of marriage under Sections 25(i) and 25(iii) and for declaring the marriage void under Section 24(1)(i) of the Act of 1954 before the Principal District Judge, Family Court, Gurugram (Haryana). The petition so filed by the respondent-husband, being HMA No. 1114 of 2018, was taken up for consideration and the petitioner-wife was served with the notice on 08.11.2018. Thereafter, the petitioner-wife filed the present transfer petition seeking transfer of the original case pending before the Principal District Judge, Family Court, Gurugram (Haryana) to the Family Court, Bhopal (Madhya Pradesh). In this petition, notices were issued 13.12.2018 and further proceedings in the said original petition were ordered to remain stayed.

3. After appearance of the parties, when the matter was taken up for consideration on 15.06.2020, the Court found it just and proper to refer the parties to Supreme Court Mediation Centre to explore the possibility of mediated settlement. Thereafter, the Mediation Centre sent its report dated 21.01.2021 pointing out, inter alia, that the parties have arrived at a settlement and an agreement to that effect was executed on 02.01.2021.

4. Thereafter, a joint application bearing No. 1424 of 2021 came to be filed by the parties with the prayer that their marriage be annulled and be declared null and void in terms of Settlement Agreement dated 02.01.2021, under Article 142 of the Constitution of India.

5. On 01.03.2021, one of us (Aniruddha Bose, J.), after having heard the parties, took the view that power and jurisdiction of the Single Judge to deal with the transfer petition under Section 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure was derived from the proviso to Order VI Rule 1 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 (‘the Rules of 2013’) but jurisdiction to pass a decree for annulment of the marriage was not vested in a Single Judge of this Court. It was also observed that a Single Judge could exercise jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India confined to four categories of cases referred to in the proviso to Order VI Rule 1; and also on the subject which could be directly relatable or ancillary to those four categories of cases but, annulment of marriage was not falling within those four categories. It was, thus, opined that the joint application ought to be dealt with by a Bench comprising of at least two Judges of this Court because as per Order VI Rule 1 of the Rules of

2013, every cause, appeal or matter is to be heard by a Bench consisting of not less than two Judges nominated by the Chief Justice of India. The matter was, accordingly, placed before Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India for appropriate directions.

6. Thereafter, the matter was placed before a Bench of two Judges, to which one of us (Dinesh Maheshwari, J.) was a party and on 05.04.2021, the said Bench observed, with reference to the prayer made, that the respondent was free to deposit the amount of Rs. 17,00,000/-(Seventeen lakhs) in the registry of this Court within two weeks. As per office report, the said amount has been deposited by the respondent-husband on 13.04.2021.

7. On the matter being taken up on 18.05.2021, the learned counsel for the parties referred to the Settlement Agreements dated 02.01.2021 and made a request for passing appropriate orders in terms thereof. However, after having examined the Settlement Agreement, we pointed out to the parties that they were not seeking decree of divorce by mutual consent but were rather seeking annulment of marriage and declaring marriage null and void in terms of Sections 24(1)(i), 25(i) and 25(iii) of the Act of 1954; and passing of such a decree