IMPORTANT POINT
Judgment on admission – Decree under Order 12 Rule 6 of CPC can be made only if there is unequivocal admission of facts by party without reserving any rights.

JUDGMENT

Heard learned counsel for the Appellant and learned counsel for the Respondent.

2. Admit. Respondent waives service. By consent, taken up for final disposal.

3. By this Appeal fled under Section 19 of Family Court Act, 1984 the original Petitioner (Appellant) challenges the impugned Judgment and decree passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court Mumbai dated 17th February, 2022 thereby passing a decree partially to the extent of prayer clause (a) and whereby the marriage between the Petitioner and the Respondent is dissolved under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The learned Family Court has however kept the Petition pending for the reliefs prayed in prayer clauses (b) and (c) to the Petition. So far as prayer clauses (b) and (c) are concerned, the clause (b) refers that the Respondent be directed to pay maintenance of Rs.80,000/- per month to Petitioner and her son; and clause (c) refers to costs of the present Petition to be granted in favour of the Petitioner.

4. The Appellant and Respondent got married on 14th July, 2013 according to the provisions of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The dispute arose between the parties on 11th January 2017. There is a child out of the said wedlock between the parties. The child is born on 24th July, 2017. In the month of November, 2017, the Appellant fled M.J. Petition No.A-3037 of 2017 inter alia praying that the marriage between the parties solemnized on 14th July, 2013 be dissolved by a decree of divorce and also prayed that the Respondent be directed to pay maintenance of Rs.80,000/- per month to Petitioner and her son with cost of the petition in favour of the Petitioner. The said Petition was opposed by the Respondent by fling written statement in the month of January 2019 and the allegations of cruelty and other allegations were made by the Appellant against the Respondent were denied. In the month of April, 2021, the Respondent fled the Application inter alia praying for passing a decree of divorce on admission and the Respondent submitting to the decree and prayer clause (a) of the Petition. The said Application was opposed by the Appellant (Original Petitioner) by fling reply on 8th February, 2022. The learned Family Court passed a decree in terms of prayer clause (a) on 17th February, 2022 which is impugned by the Appellant (original Petitioner) in this Family Court Appeal.

5. The learned counsel for the Appellant invited our attention to the written statement fled by the Respondent. Despite the allegation of cruelty made by the Appellant were denied by the Respondent, the Application was fled by the Respondent submitting to the decree of divorce on admission in terms of prayer clause (a) of the Petition. The Application was opposed by the Appellant by fling the affidavit-in-reply. He submitted that the Family Court could not have passed a decree in terms of prayer clause (a) on admission. Even though there were serious allegations of cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 against the Respondent, which were disputed by the Respondent in the written statement and also in the Application fled by the Respondent for decree of divorce on admission, the learned Family Court passed a decree for divorce. He submitted that in the affidavit-in-reply fled by the Appellant apart from the allegations of cruelty, the Appellant had disputed that there was any unconditional and unequivocal admission on the part of the Respondent for passing decree in terms of prayer clause (a).

6. Learned counsel for the Respondent on the other hand submitted that the marriage between both the parties was severed and not reconciled for quite sometime. He submitted that in the affidavit-in-reply to the Application fled by the Respondent, the Appellant had clearly admitted that at the point of passing the decree, the status of the Appellant and Respondent get severed as husband and wife. It is further stated in the affidavit-in-reply that the Appellant shall not be wife