Back
2011 Supreme(P&H) 994
2011 (6) RCR(Civ) 13
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
RAJESH BINDAL, J.
Harpal Singh - Appellant
Vs.
Taranpreet Kaur - Respondent
FAO No. M-275 of 2010 (O&M)
Decided on: 7.4.2011
Mr. Karan Bhardwaj and Mr. Shakti Bhardwaj, Advocates, for the appellant.
Mr. J. S. Thind, Advocate, for the respondent.
The court upheld the validity of the mutual settlement and the conversion of the petition into a divorce by mutual consent under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
Headnote:
Section 13 - Dissolution of Marriage - Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - [Section 13]
Fact of the Case:
The appellant-husband filed a petition for dissolution of marriage under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, which was initially dismissed by the lower court. During the pendency of the appeal, the matter was mutually settled and converted into a petition for divorce by mutual consent under Section 13-B of the Act.
Finding of the Court:
The parties mutually settled their disputes, and a decree of divorce by way of mutual consent was passed, dissolving the marriage.
Issues: The main issue was the dissolution of the marriage under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and the subsequent mutual settlement and conversion of the petition into a divorce by mutual consent under Section 13-B of the Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found the settlement to be bonafide and passed a decree of divorce by way of mutual consent, setting aside the judgment of the lower court.
Final Decision: A decree of divorce by way of mutual consent was passed, dissolving the marriage of the parties, and the appeal was disposed of accordingly.
Rajesh Bindal J. - Challenge in the present appeal is to the judgment and decree of the learned court below whereby petition filed by the appellant-husband under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short, “the Act”), for dissolution of marriage, was dismissed on 19.7.2010.
2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the marriage of the parties was solemnised as per Sikh rites (Anand Karaj) on 28.7.1999. Out of the wedlock one female child namely Gurpreet Kaur was born on 22.2.2001, who is presently residing with the father. Due to temperamental differences, the parties could not pull on together. They are living separate since 5.6.2005. Petition filed by the husband for dissolution of marriage under Section 13 of the Act, was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Barnala, on 19.7.2010. Thereafter, the appellant husband filed appeal before this court. During the pendency of the appeal, the matter was referred to the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court, where the same was mutually settled on 24.01.2011. The petition was amended and converted into a petition under Section 13-B of the Act for divorce by mutual consent.
3. As per the agreement, a sum of 12,00,000/- was settled as permanent alimony to be paid to the wife by the husband. She had received 6,00,000/- on 14.3.2011. Today both the parties were present in person in court along with their respective fathers. They were identified by their respective counsels. Their joint statement was recorded in the court. The same was even endorsed by the fathers of both the parties. The text of the statement is extracted as under:-
“Our marriage was solemnized on 28.07.1999. A female child, namely, Gurpreet Kaur was born on 22.02.2001. We are living separate since 05.06.2005. A divorce petition filed by the husband was dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Barnala, against which the husband filed appeal before this court. During the pendency of the appeal, the matter was referred to the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court and the same was mutually settled on 24.01.2011. The compromise was duly signed by the parties and their counsel. Both the parties will abide by the terms of the compromise.
The wife has already received a sum of 6,00,000/- on March 14, 2011 out of 12,00,000/-, settled as permanent alimony. Balance amount of 6,00,000/- have been paid toady by the husband to the wife by way of demand draft Nos. 016511 and 016447 dated 12.03.2011 and 07.03.2011 respectively drawn on HDFC Bank Limited, Sirsa amounting to 3,00,000/- each.
In terms of Para No.4 of the compromise, wife is to vacate the house in her possession at village Manal, which is in ownership of Balwinder Singh, father of the husband. It has been mutually agreed by us that at 12.00 noon, both the parties will be present at the house. Sarpanch of village will also be requested to present there and in his presence, the wife shall remove a TV set, a cooking gas burner along with cylinder and her personal apparels and thereafter hand over keys of the house to the husband or any of his family member, present at the spot.
Complaints, application and civil suit filed by the wife, as detailed under, shall be dismissed as withdrawn in view of the settlement between the parties:-
Complaint case titled Taranpreet Kaur Vs. Harpal Singh under Section 307 IPC, pending in the court of CJM, Barnala.
Complaint case titled Taranpreet Kaur Vs. Harpal Singh under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act pending in the court of JMIC, Barnala.
Application titled Taranpreet Kaur Vs. Harpal Singh under Section 125 Cr.P.C. pending in the court of CJM, Baranal.
Civil Suit titled Taranpreet Kaur Vs. Harpal Singh pending at Barnala.
A complaint filed by the father of the husband, namely, Balwinder Singh against the wife pending in the court of CJM, Barnala shall also be treated as not pressed and disposed of in terms of the settlement arrived at between the parties.
We have no objection
