IMPORTANT POINT
A dead marriage must be given a decent quietus.

JUDGMENT :

K.VINOD CHANDRAN, J.

Matrimonial acrimony has left the parties fighting in courts for eight long years, after a brief conjugal life of one year and nine months. The parties were both divorced once and had attempted yet another experiment at marriage, which too failed miserably. The appellant-husband asserts that the 2nd respondent-wife (hereinafter referred to as the respondent) got a fair settlement as alimony from the earlier divorce; which, we find at the outset, is irrelevant in the adjudication of the present dispute. The appellant has an autistic child from the first marriage and the ownership of the apartment he jointly owned with his first wife was released in his favour in the best interest of the minor child. The parties were residing in the said apartment, viz: A-52, Kalpataru Habitat, Dr. S.S. Rao Road, Mumbai; which is one of the bone of contentions in the dispute, when they became estranged.

2. The appellant asserts that it was due to irreconcilable disputes resulting in constant harassment by the wife that he left the apartment and moved to Faridabad to stay with his parents and his differently abled child, also forsaking his lucrative employment in a private bank. The respondent on the other hand alleges continued intimidation and domestic violence at the hands of the appellant after which he abandoned her and left her high and dry without any means to survive. Only in desperation, she brought her parents to stay with her in the flat of the appellant; her matrimonial home.

3. The disputes between the appellant and the respondent resulted in a complaint Annexure P-3 filed inter-alia under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity, ‘I.P.C.’) leading to registration of an F.I.R. which resulted in the launch of a criminal prosecution, to set aside which the appellant approached the High Court. The Order declining revisional jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for brevity, ‘Cr.P.C.) has led to the present appeal. In the meanwhile, the respondent initiated a criminal prosecution under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 against the appellant and his parents in May 2017, in which month itself the appellant filed a petition for divorce in the jurisdictional Court at Delhi. The Family Court, Saket, New Delhi before which the application for divorce was pending referred the matter for mediation to the Principal Counsellor. A settlement agreement was reached, which is annexed herewith as Annexure P-10, signed by both the parties on 01.09.2022.

4. The first motion dated 03.09.2022 for divorce on mutual consent under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 was moved by both the parties along with settlement entered into between them, which was recorded by the Family Court on 14.09.2022. But before the second motion, the respondent- wife resiled from the agreement which prompted the appellant to approach the High Court of Bombay for quashing the criminal proceedings pending before the Metropolitan Magistrate, 15th Court at Sewree, Mumbai arising out of CR No.63 of 2018 dated 19.04.2018. The principal ground raised before the High Court was the appellant’s withdrawal from the divorce on mutual consent, which according to the appellant justified the quashing of the criminal proceedings. The appellant also moved the High Court of Delhi alleging contempt insofar as withdrawing from the consent and refusing to follow it up on the second motion before the Family Court. A learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court punished the respondent for contempt which order was set aside by the Division Bench on an appeal filed by the respondent.

5. We heard learned Senior Counsel, Smt. Madhavi Diwan for the appellant and the respondent who appeared in person before us.

6. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant pointed out that the respondent had acted as per the settlement and then resiled from it without reasonable cause; obviously with the intention to coerce the appellant i