Hon'ble Dr. KOTHARI, J.—The present appeal is directed against the order dated 14/7/2008 passed by learned District Judge, Bhilwara dismissing the joint petition filed on 3/1/2007 by the parties to the matrimony, Mr. Anil Khatwani and Smt. Nistha Khatwani under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking divorce by mutual consent and registered as case no. 16/2007. The appellant husband, Mr. Anil Khatwani has preferred this appeal being aggrieved by the dismissal of the petition jointly filed by both the parties under Section 13 B of the Act.

2. The brief factual matrix of the case is as under.

3. The marriage between appellant, Mr.Anil Khatwani and respondent, Nistha Khatwani took place at Ajmer on 30/11/2002 as per Hindu rites and a son, Siddharth was born out of this wedlock on 12/5/2004. The parties are admittedly living separately since November, 2005 on account of various disputes and incompatibility and criminal complaint under Section 406 and 498-A IPC & under the provisions of Domestic Violence Act were also filed by the respondent wife, Smt. Nistha Khatwani against the appellant, Anil Khatwani and his family members. However, since the efforts of reconciliation between the parties failed, a written compromise was arrived at between the parties on 3/1/2007 at Bhilwara and pursuant to that, the present petition under Section 13B of the Act was jointly filed by both the parties before the learned District Judge, Bhilwara, which was registered on the same day and was posted after statutory waiting period of six months on 5/7/2007. On subsequent dates fixed by the learned court below, the respondent wife was mostly not present before the court like on 23/7/2007, 8/8/2007, 5/11/2007 and 16/11/2007. On 11/1/2008 both the parties were not present before the court below and again on 4/2/2008, the appellant husband was present but respondent wife was not present. On 11/3/2008, the respondent wife seeking exemption for her appearance on 12/3/2008 before the court below, filed an application that she does not want to proceed further in this said case and the proceedings of the case deserve to be concluded at that stage itself. On 12/3/2008, the appellant husband also preferred an application that divorce decree by mutual consent in pursuance of petition under Section 13B of the Act jointly filed by both the parties on 3/1/2007 may be granted as the appellant husband has already paid a sum of Rs. 5 lacs by two Demand Drafts No.690031 dated 7/12/2006 of Rs.2.5 lacs and No. 690032 dated 7/12/2006 of Rs. 2.5 lacs drawn on Bank of Baroda to the respondent wife towards dowry items and future maintenance of herself and their son Siddharth and appellant husband also opposed the application dated 11/3/2008 filed by the respondent wife, seeking exemption to appear on 12/3/2008. However, 12/3/2008, the fact of filing of the application dated 11/3/2008 by the respondent wife that the proceedings may be concluded at this stage was noted by the court below and copy of the application filed by the appellant husband was given to the counsel for the respondent wife and the matter was adjourned to 10/4/2008 for reply to the said application and for presence of the parties, though the consent divorce decree could have been passed on 12/3/2008 itself.

4. On 10/4/2008, a new counsel appeared on behalf of respondent wife, Mr. Naresh Daad & he sought further time to file reply and matter was again adjourned to 13/5/2008, on which date again the said Advocate concerned sought further time and matter was adjourned to 29/5/2008. On 29/5/2008, the respondent wife filed reply to the application dated 12/3/2008 of the husband in which she expressed for the first time that the compromise filed on 3/1/2007 was signed by her under pressure and the amount of Rs.5 lacs paid was for dowry items, furniture, household articles and jewelery items of respondent Nishtha, whereas, no amount was paid for maintenance of respondent wife and her son. In para no. 3 of

Click Here to Read the rest of this document