Savitri Ratho, J.

The CRLMC has been filed for quashing of the proceedings in G.R. Case No. 626 of 2012 arising out of Kumbharpada P.S. Case No.88 of 2012 which arises out of 1CC Case No. 56 of 2012 pending in the court of the learned SDJM, Puri.

BRIEF FACT OF THE CASE

The brief fact of the case is that on 16.02.2005 Petitioner No-1 had married to the Opp party No.2 as per Hindu rites and customs. After marriage the Opp party No.2 remained in the house of the Petitioner No-1. as husband and wife. The Petitioners demanded a dowry of sum Rs 5,00,000/-(Rupees Five Lakhs) for business purposes. But the Opp parties could only arrange Rs 2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs) and when they could not arrange the remaining amount they threatened her to pouring kerosene and putting fire her and make a case of suicide. With such allegation, Kumbharapada PS registered as P.S. case No-88/2012 under sections 498 (A)/34 IPC & u/s 4 D.P. Act which arising out of GR case No- 626/2012 which is pending before the Learned SDJM Puri.

SUBMISSIONS

Mr. D.K. Swain, learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that there is no evidence regarding demand of dowry and the allegations relating to demand of dowry and threats are false and vague. The dispute between the spouses arose due to matrimonial incompatibility, which has been given a criminal colour to harass the Petitioners. Thereafter Petitioner No.1 and Opposite Party No.2 decided to bring an end to their differences and their marriage has been dissolved by a decree of mutual divorce. He files a memo enclosing the following documents:-

(i) a petition dated 23.04.2016 filed in C.P. No. 164 of 2015, with a prayer that the Court be pleased to pass a decree of divorce, signed by both the Petitioner as well as Opposite Party No.2-Jasmin Mishra.

(ii) Judgment dated 27.06.2016 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Puri in C.P. No. 164 of 2015 dissolving the marriage of the Petitioner No.1 and Opposite Party No.2-Jasmin Mishra, by a decree of divorce by mutual consent.

Attention of this Court is also drawn to order dated 10.04.2023 passed by this Court, which reveals that Opposite Party No.2-Jasmin Mishra had been noticed by way of substituted service by publication of the notice in daily newspaper ‘The Samaj’. After perusing the notice in ‘The Samaj’ dated 8th April, 2023, this Court had held that service of notice on Opposite Party No.2-Jasmin Mishra was sufficient.

Mr. Raj Bhusan Dash, learned counsel for opposite Party opposes the submission of learned counsel for Petitioner and submits that as the parties have given consent for dissolving their marriage, the Opposite Party No.2 may not be interested to pursue the criminal case in the learned trial court.

STATUTORY PROVISIONS

Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act are extracted below:

“13B. Divorce by mutual consent.—

(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act a petition for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce may be presented to the district court by both the parties to a marriage together, whether such marriage was solemnized before or after the commencement of the Marriage Laws (Amendment) Act, 1976 (68 of 1976), on the ground that they have been living separately for a period of one year or more, that they have not been able to live together and that they have mutually agreed that the marriage should be dissolved.

(2) On the motion of both the parties made not earlier than six months after the date of the presentation of the petition referred to in sub-section (1) and not later than eighteen months after the said date, if the petition is not withdrawn in the meantime, the court shall, on being satisfied, after hearing the parties and after making such inquiry as it thinks fit, that a marriage has been solemnized and that the averments in the petition are true, pass a decree of divorce declaring the marriage to be dissolved with effect from the date of the decree.”

JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENT

The Supreme Co