SURYAKANT, J.:- This Letters Patent Appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent is directed against the judgment, dated 23-8-2001, passed by the learned single Judge whereby F.A.O. No.114-M of 2001 preferred by the respondent-wife against the decree of divorce by mutual consent, dated 3-5-2001, was allowed and the said decree was set aside. The order, dated 10-10-2001, dismissing the Review Application No.1196-CII of 2001 filed by the appellant against the above-mentioned judgment and order, dated 23-8-2001, is also under challenge.

2. Brief recapitulation of the facts is as follows :

2.1. The appellant (husband), who is a Captain in Merchant Navy, was married to the respondent (wife) on 9-5-1994 at Ludhiana as per Sikh religious rites and ceremonies. Out of the wedlock a female child, namely, Naseem (renamed as Namrata) was born on 5-10-1995. Unfortunately, the appellant and the respondent could not pull on together and their marital chorus ended abruptly when a petition under Section 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (in short 'the Act') for judicial separation, was filed by the appellant on 15-4-1998 in the Court of Additional District Judge at Ambala. Subsequently, the appellant sought amendment of the said petition to convert it under Section 13 of the Act for dissolution of their marriage. The amendment was allowed by the trial Court, however, upon challenge by the respondent, this Court set aside the same in Civil Revision No.2775 of 2000 decided on 22-11-2000.

2.2. In addition to the claim for maintenance pendente-lite, it appears that the respondent also initiated criminal proceedings against the appellant and his family members for the alleged demand of dowry etc. It further appears that before the relations between them became sour, the parties were residing at Mohali in a house owned by the appellant, though according to him, immediate before he filed the petition under Section 10 of the Act, they were residing in his parental house at Ambala Cantt.

2.3. During the pendency of petition under Section 10 of the Act, the parties moved a joint application on 31-3-2001 and sought leave of the Court to amend the said petition and convert it under Section 13-B of the Act for the grant of decree of divorce by mutual consent. Necessary permission was granted by the learned trial Court. A perusal of the record shows that the aforesaid application was moved by them along with a 'written compromise' in terms whereof the appellant agreed to pay Rs.3,000/- per month to the respondent and Rs.1500/- per month to his minor daughter as maintenance; the child was to remain in the custody of the mother with visiting rights to her father and in the event of remarriage by the respondent and/or her going abroad in order to settle down there, the custody of the child was to be given to the father. While entertaining the aforesaid joint petition, the learned trial Court in its order, dated 31-3-2001, observed that it has "thoroughly questioned the parties and is of the considered opinion that the parties have voluntarily and without any pressure or coercion have decided to take divorce by mutual consent". The learned trial Court also recorded their statements separately on 31-3-2001 in which both the appellant and the respondent deposed in support of their petition under Section 13-B of the Act. The case was thereafter adjourned to 4-4-2001.

2.4. On 4-4-2001 also, statements of the appellant and the respondent were recorded in which they reiterated their decision to part ways by way of a decree of divorce by mutual consent. The case was thereafter adjourned to 3-5-2001 when both the parties appeared before the learned trial Court and stated that during the intervening period they again pondered over the issue and having realized that they are unable to live like husband and wife, want dissolution of their marriage. The learned trial Court, conscious of the fact that minimum waiting period of 6 months, after the date of presentation of the peti

Click Here to Read the rest of this document