Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 40 (PNJ)

Roshani v. Dalsher

2002-01-08

M.M.KUMAR

body2002
Judgment M.M.Kumar, J. 1. This is an appeal directed against judgment dated 11.4.2001, passed by District Judge, Jind, dismissing the petition filed under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) of the appellant-wife (hereinafter refer to as the appellant). 2. The appellant was married to respondent-husband (hereinafter referred to as the respondent) according to Hindu rites and ceremonies in 1994. After marriage, both of them lived in their matrimonial home at village Anchra Kalan (Jattan Wala), Tehsil Safidon, District Jind. A male child Manjeet @ Mandeep was born out of this wedlock. 3. The wife filed a petition under Section 13 of the Act seeking dissolution of her marriage on the principal ground of cruelty by the husband and alleging that his elder brother S/Sh. Shamsher Singh and Ran Singh had attempted to outrage her modesty on various occasions. The detail of those attempts has been given in the judgment dated 11.4.2001. Thereafter, efforts were made by the assembly of Panchayat but the attempts to outrage her modesty continued. She has also alleged that a demand of Rs. 20,000/-and two buffaloes as dowry, has also been made. Disbelieving these allegations, the learned District Judge, Jind, dismissed her petition on 11.4.2001 and she is before this Court against that judgment. 4. On 20.10.2001, a statement was made before this Court expressing the will of both the parties to present an application under Section 13-B of the Act seeking dissolution of marriage by mutual consent. In pursuance to that order, a joint application under Section 13-B of the Act signed by both the parties have been filed. Dalsher son of Sh. Ram Sarup, Jat resident of village Anchra Kalan (Jattan Wala), Tehsil Safidon, District Jind and also Smt. Roshni wife of Dalsher daughter of Bedu resident of village Ram Rai, Tehsil .and District Jind, have filed their respective affidavits in support of the same. 5. The averment in the application shows that the parties are living separately since 23.3.1999 and the petition under Section 13 of the Act for dissolution of marriage preferred by the appellant before the District Judge has failed and was dismissed on 11.4.2001. 6. 5. The averment in the application shows that the parties are living separately since 23.3.1999 and the petition under Section 13 of the Act for dissolution of marriage preferred by the appellant before the District Judge has failed and was dismissed on 11.4.2001. 6. The prayer made in this application signed by both the parties is that the petition filed by the wife before the District Judge may be converted into a petition under Section 13-B of the Act and the period of six months may be taken to have commenced from the date of presentation of that petition before the learned District Judge. The record shows that petition under Section 13-A of the Act was filed before the learned District Judge on 10.4.1999. 7. I have given thoughtful consideration to the assertions made by the parties in their joint application and am of the opinion that the prayer made is liable to be granted. The nature of allegations in the petition filed by the wife under Section 13-B of the Act persuade to take the view that this is a case of broken marriage and there is no possibility of rehabilitating the marriage by uniting the wife and the husband. Even otherwise, the counsel I am adopting has the backing of binding precedents. In the case of Arun Chawla v. Smt. Reena, (1997-3)117 P.L.R. 756, a Division Bench of this Court followed this course and held that joint application under Section 13-B, filed before them would relate back to the date when the petition under Section 13 was filed before the District Judge. The Division Bench further held that the period of six months would also commence from that date. Similar course was adopted by two other Division Benches of this Court in the cases of Jaqsir Singh v. Smt. Paramjit Kaur, (1998-1)118 P.L.R. 702 and Shiv Kumar v. Geeta, (1998-1)118 P.L.R. 708. Therefore, there is no impediment in so far as the requirement granting period of six months to the parties with the object of exploring the possibility of reconciliation is concerned. The period of six months has expired long ago if the date of joint application presented before me is taken to be 10.4.1999. 8. The parties are present in person. An amount of Rs. The period of six months has expired long ago if the date of joint application presented before me is taken to be 10.4.1999. 8. The parties are present in person. An amount of Rs. 10,000/- as maintenance plus litigation expenses upto 31.12.2001 as awarded by the Courts below has been paid by the husband to the wife. The male child (only child from their wedlock) is to be kept by the respondent-husband. It is also averred in the joint application that no claim of any nature shall be made by either by the parties hereinafter against each other. 9. I have asked questions to both the sides about the terms of the settlement to which they candidly agreed. I am satisfied that there is no fraud, coercion and misrepresentation. The child namely, Manjeet @ Mandeep has been handed over by the wife to the husband Dalsher in the Court. 10. In view of the above, a decree of divorce by mutual consent is passed and the marriage between the parties is dissolved under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly.