Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 472 (PNJ)

Indra Sharma v. Varinder Sharma

2000-05-02

SWATANTER KUMAR

body2000
Judgment Swatanter Kumar, J. 1. This is an unfortunate matrimonial litigation where Ms. Indra Sharma was married to Varinder Sharma on 11.9.1993 in Oxford, U.K. They lived together for a short time, and as it appears from the record, temporary differences started between the parties sooner than one could imagine. The husband claims that he came back to India on 17.9.1994, while the wife, who was employed, continued to live in U.K. Shorn of other unnecessary details, the fact of the matter is that the husband filed a petition under Section 18 of the Foreign Marriage Act read with Section 29 of the Special Marriage Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act, praying for a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion. Various other serious allegations were also made. The wife also made a complaint to the Crimes Against Womens Cell, Sector 17, Chandigarh, which in turn, aggravated the situation further. The divorce petition was contested by the wife. However, the learned Trial Court vide its judgment and decree dated 5.3.1999 dissolved the marriage between the parties by a decree of divorce. 2. Dissatisfied from the order of the Trial Court, the wife preferred the appeal, before this Court. The appeal, as is obvious from the afore-noticed registration number, was filed in the year 1999 and since then the parties have been litigating in regard to maintenance and litigation expenses. 3. During the course of hearing of this appeal and various applications the wife had come from U.K. to attend the hearing as well as the reconciliation proceedings. The parties on 26.4.2000 stated before this Court that they wanted to settle the matter amicably and put an end to their prolonged matrimonial litigation. The Court passed the following order on 26.4.2000 when Counsel for the parties were present : "Parties have arrived at a settlement during the hearing of this appeal and they have agreed to dissolve their marriage by a decree of divorce on the ground of mutual consent. Counsel for the parties submit that statements of the parties may be recorded and they shall shortly file an application/petition under Section 28 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 for converting/amending the petition as a petition for divorce by mutual consent. Let statements of the parties be recorded." 4. Counsel for the parties submit that statements of the parties may be recorded and they shall shortly file an application/petition under Section 28 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 for converting/amending the petition as a petition for divorce by mutual consent. Let statements of the parties be recorded." 4. Statements of the parties were recorded in furtherance to the said order and the parties were given time to think over the matter more seriously and file appropriate application in accordance with law. Resultantly, they filed a petition under Section 28 of the Act on 28.4.2000 which was registered as CM. No. 5200-CII of 2000 in the main appeal. 5. Thus, this Court has firstly to consider the aspect whether the application filed by the parties for amendment should be allowed and if allowed what should be the date to which the amendment should relate back. From the evidence on record and more particularly the statements recorded on 26.4.2000 it appears that marriage between the parties had certainly an irretrievable break down. There is a joint application for amendment of the petition with an intention to put an end to this prolonged litigation. The ends of justice demand that this application should be allowed and the parties should be permitted to amend the petition. The amendment prayed for should be ordered to relate back to the date of institution of the first petition under Sections 18 and 29 of the respective Acts. Resultantly, Civil Misc. No. 5200-CII of 2000 is allowed. Amended petition under Section 28 of the Act is ordered to be taken up on record. The amendment will relate back to the date of filing of the first petition. 6. After the amended petition had been taken on record, the parties were directed to again appear in Court and to make a statement in furtherance to their compromise. The terms and conditions of the compromise were duly recorded in the application which is Ex. XX. As per the terms of the joint petition the marriage between the parties is to be dissolved by a decree of divorce on the ground of mutual consent; the wife was entitled to get Rs. four lacs in settlement of all her claims and the allegations made by each party against the other were deemed to have been withdrawn from the judicial record. four lacs in settlement of all her claims and the allegations made by each party against the other were deemed to have been withdrawn from the judicial record. The parties appeared on 1.5.2000 and again their statements were recorded on oath. 7. They reiterated in greater detail their statements and confirmed the terms and conditions of Ex. XX. Ms. Indra Sharma, while admitted that the application was signed at the portion encircled marked A, there her Counsel signed the same at portion encircled marked B. She also admitted the fact that she had sworn an affidavit in support of the petition and signed the encircled portions marked X.1 and X.2 respectively. Similar statement was made by Varinder Kumar stating that he had signed the petition at encircled portion C and his Counsel signed at encircled portion marked D. The affidavit in support of the petition was signed at marks X.3 and X.4 respectively. 8. The statements read with the joint petition leave no doubt in the mind of the Court that the parties are in no way interested in continuing with their matrimonial relationship but are definite in their mind to dissolve the said marriage. The object of the legislation to effect reconciliation between the parties is primarily to make the parties rethink over the entire matter and to finally decide whether they wish to live together as husband and wife or pray for dissolution of the marriage. The parties have been litigating for the last more than 5 years. Various reconciliation efforts made in the Trial Court as well as before this Court proved futile and the parties ultimately admitted that there is no compatibility between them and their marriage has irretrievably broken down. The husband and the wife in fact made a specific statement that they have considered and reconsidered the entire matter and they do not wish to continue the matrimonial bond. A sum of Rs. four lacs by way of two bank drafts has been paid by the husband to the wife in Court which was accepted on 1.5.2000. Other terms have also been complied with. 9. A sum of Rs. four lacs by way of two bank drafts has been paid by the husband to the wife in Court which was accepted on 1.5.2000. Other terms have also been complied with. 9. Keeping in view the above facts and the material on record I am of the considered view that this is a fit case where the marriage between the parties should be dissolved by a decree of divorce on the ground of mutual consent in consonance with the provisions of Section 28 of the Act. Ordered accordingly. Ex. XX shall form part of the decree. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs.