SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2011 Supreme(Raj) 75

[Citation : 2012(1) RLW 381 (SC)]
(Supreme Court)
Veena Vs. State Govt. of NCT, Delhi & Anr. (Bhandari, J.)
HON'BLE DALVEER BHANDARI, J.
HON'BLE DEEPAK VERMA, J.
Veena
Versus
State Govt. of NCT, Delhi & Anr.
Criminal Appeal Nos. 255-256 of 2011, decided on 28.01.2011

Headnote:Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Sec. 13-B read with Sec. 13(1)(ia) — Divorce by mutual consent — Parties are living separately for over 10 years — No possibility of reconciliation between them — Parties have agreed to compromise — Parties are ready to withdraw all pending suits and criminal proceedings against each other — Held — Divorce petition converted into u/Sec. 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act and divorce granted to the parties by mutual consent. (Para 6)

       Order accordingly.

       fgUnw fookg vf/kfu;e] 1955] /kkjk 13-[k] lifBr /kkjk 13¼1½ ¼ia½ & ikjLifjd lgefr ls fookg foPNsn & i{kdkj fiNys 10 o"kksZ ls Hkh vf/kd le; ls i`Fkd-i`Fkd jg jgs gS muds e/; jkthukeksa dh dksbZ laHkkouk ugha & i{kdkj jkthukesa ds fy, lger gq, & i{kdkj ,d nwljs ds fo:) lHkh yfEcr oknksa ,oa QkStnkjh dk;Zokfg;ksa dks izR;kg`r djus gsrq rS;kj gS & vfHkfu/kkZfjr & fookg foPNsn ;kfpdk dk dks fgUnw fookg vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 13-[k ds rgr ;kfpdk esa rCnhy fd;k rFkk vkilh lgefr ls i{kdkjksa dk fookg foPNsn eatwj fd;kA ¼in la[;k 6½

       rnuqlkj vkns'k fn;kA


       

Hon'ble BHANDARI, J.—Leave granted.

The appellant Veena and respondent No.2 – Jagdish Prasad are present in Court. They were married on 30.9.1998. Out of the wedlock, they have one daughter who is in the custody of the appellant Veena.

2. It is not disputed that the parties have been living separately for over 10 years and reconciliation is not possible now. Both the appellant Veena and respondent No.2 Jagdish Prasad pray that a decree of divorce by mutual consent be granted.

3. The appellant Veena undertakes to withdraw all the cases filed by her against Jagdish Prasad and his family members, including the one filed under Section 498A of the I.P.C., within two weeks from today. She also undertakes not to claim any maintenance for her daughter or for herself.

4. Respondent No.2 Jagdish Prasad undertakes to withdraw Case No.248/2004 P.S. Golakpuri, under Section 340 of the Cr.P.C., pending before the Court of Shri Rakesh Pandit, Metropolitan Magistrate, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, within two weeks from today.

5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and talked to the parties. The appellant has filed a divorce petition under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, being HMA No.397/2008 which is pending before the Court of Sanjeev Mattu, Additional District Judge, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, we deem it appropriate to transfer the said divorce petition to this Court and take the same on Board. The said divorce petition is converted into one under Sec. 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act and we grant divorce to the parties by mutual consent.

6. We direct that the custody of the daughter would continue to remain with the appellant.

7. We may observe that the mere filing of the petition by the appellant would not come in the way of the father of respondent No.2 receiving pensionary and other benefits which are permissible them under law.

8. With these observations, these appeals are disposed of.




Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top