PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
D.K.Jain and Surya Kant JJ.
Charanjit Singh Mann
Versus
Neelam Mann
Letter Patent Appeal No. 2492 of 2001,
Decided On : APRIL 3, 2006
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Section 10, 13B - Amendment of petition from S. 10 to 13B - Principle of relate back - Waiting period of 6 months - Whether amendment of the petition under section 10 into a petition under section 13 - B of the Act will relate back to the date of filing of the unamended petitioner ? NO. Held, If the theory of relate back is applied in such like cases then the waiting period will precede the presentation of a joint petition - Plea of conversion of petition under Section 10 into under section 13 - B of the Act, the joint petition shall not be deemed to have been filed on 15.4.1988, rejected - The doctrine of relation back being not of universal application - Cannot be pressed into service to defeat a statutory provision or its object. (Para 18)
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Section 13-B - Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 142 - Divorce by mutual consent - Waiving off the waiting period - Appellate jurisdiction of the High Court - scope of - Held; The powers akin to Article 142 of the constitution are concededly not enjoyed upon by the High Court while exercising its appellate jurisdiction. (Para 19)
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order 5 Rule 15 - Notice - Service of - On an adult member (male of female) residing with a party to the lis - Reasonable time no likelihood of his being found - there has to be satisfaction regarding likelihood of his non - availability at his residence within a reasonable time - Notice deemed to be served. (Paras 22 to 24)
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Section 13-B, 10 - Divorce - During pendency of petition under S. 10 converted into a petition under Section 13 - B - Matrimonial Court passing the decree of divorce waiving off the minimum waiting period of 6 months prescribed in the Act - Wife alleging that her consent for divorce was obtained in invitum through fraudulent means - High Court restrained the husband from re - marrying till further order and stayed operation of the judgment and decree dated 3.5.2001 passed by Matrimonial Court - Notices were issued - Husband got remarried on 5.6.2001 - Ld Single judge setting the impugned decree of divorce holding that no decree for divorce by mutual consent could have been passed until the expiry of mandatory waiting period of 6 months - Letters Patent Appeal under Clause X - Held, Second marriage appears to be a step of haste - Remarrying speaks volumes - Lawful claim could not be defeated - No equity in the favour of husband - No merit. Appeal dismissed. (Paras 25 and 26)
SURYA KANT, J.
1. This Letters Patent Appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent is directed against the judgement, 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 judgement 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 soar, 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 pres
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.