Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 590 (PNJ)

Navjot Kaur v. Balwinder Singh

2002-05-24

J.S.NARANG

body2002
JUDGMENT J.S. Narang, J. - The appellant Navjot Kaur wife of Balwinder Singh filed a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act for seeking dissolution of the marriage on the grounds contained therein. 2. The marriage between Navjot Kaur and Balwinder Singh was solemnised on 6.12.1995 at Sangrur according to Sikh marriage rites. The Andna Karaj Ceremony was duly performed. After the marriage, Balwinder Singh took Navjot Kaur, his wife, to his house at Bareta, i.e., the matrimonial home. It was in June, 1996, the husband and wife fell out and at that time, the wife had already conceived. However, she left the matrimonial home and went back to the parental home. A male child was born on 2.9.1996 at Sangrur. She never went back to the matrimonial home. Despite the fact that an effort was made to resolve the dispute and reconciliate the marriage. There were numerous allegations which were levelled against each other. 3. It was on 11.8.1997, it was mutually decided that the marriage should be dissolved. A petition under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act was filed by the parties on 22.8.1997 in the Court of learned District Judge, Sangrur. The statements of the parties were recorded and in pursuant thereto, the custody of the minor child was taken by the husband. The hearing of the petition was adjourned to 5.3.1998. It is on that date, the consent given was withdrawn, resultantly, the petition was dismissed vide order dated 6.3.1998. 4. It is thereafter, the petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act was filed by the wife. The petition was contested by the husband and that the allegations were duly controverted. Upon the pleadings of the parties, issues were framed, oral and documentary evidence was led. The petition was dismissed vide order dated 10.2.2001. The wife being dissatisfied with the impugned order filed the present appeal. 5. The parties were directed to appear in person. An efforts for reconciliation of marriage had been made in my Chamber. Despite sufficient time having been granted, but no possibility could be seen that the parties may be able to save this marriage. C.M. application has been filed for placing on record a compromise dated 11.8.1997, the said compromise is of no consequence. An efforts for reconciliation of marriage had been made in my Chamber. Despite sufficient time having been granted, but no possibility could be seen that the parties may be able to save this marriage. C.M. application has been filed for placing on record a compromise dated 11.8.1997, the said compromise is of no consequence. However, another C.W. No. 10194-CII of 2002 has been filed by the parties to the effect that the petition filed by the wife be allowed to be amended, to have been filed under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act. The parties submitted their respective affidavits in support of the said petition. Both of them have stepped into witness box and their respective statements have been recorded. It shall be appropriate to mention here that the wife had already received a sum of Rs. 1,25,000/- vide Demand Draft No. 466344 dated 16.8.1997 drawn on Punjab National Bank, Sangrur and that the said draft had been duly encashed. Resultantly, the wife accepted this amount as full and final payment of the alimony payable by the husband. She has stated that this shall include her claim with regard to is stridhan and articles/ornaments which were given to her by her parents as dowry. She has stated that she has nothing more to claim from her husband. It is also stated that she has not filed any criminal or civil case against her husband and that she does not intend to file any criminal or civil case against him. She has categorically stated that both husband and wife are agreeable to dissolve this marriage with consent. It has been admitted that she had appended her signatures upon the petition under Section 13-B of the Act and so also upon the affidavit dated 22.5.2002 without any duress, undue influence or coercion from any quarters. 6. Both husband and wife have accepted each others contentions as made on solemn affirmation and have stated that it is not possible for them to live together. They have also stated that they have been living separately since June, 1996, it shall be futile if the hearing of the petition is adjourned for a period of six months as has been statutorily provided. In view of this statement, the status between the parties will remain the same eve, if the hearing of the petition is adjourned for a period of six months. In view of this statement, the status between the parties will remain the same eve, if the hearing of the petition is adjourned for a period of six months. In view of the statements made by the parties and having deposed by way of affidavit, I am of the considered opinion that it shall be in the interest of both the parties that the period of six months for which the petition is required to be adjourned is condoned. I order accordingly. 7. Both the parties having agreed to dissolve the marriage have further agreed that the wife shall have the visiting rights to see the child till he attains the age of majority. However, the wife has accepted that the custody of the child shall remain with the husband. On the other hand, the husband has also agreed that he shall have no objection regarding her visitation rights for seeing the child. It is categorically stated that she may meet the child whenever she may feel convenient and that she shall have the absolute liberty to meet the child. He has stated that he should be given prior intimation so that the child is available, if the child is not living with him temporarily or otherwise. She should not be permitted to take the child away from his custody or from his house or wherever the child may be staying. He has stated that even if the child is admitted to a School with hostel facility, even then she shall be entitled only to meet the child in the hostel subject to the permission of the Principal/Warden of the Hostel. But at that time also, a prior intimation be sent to the husband so that if he chooses to be present at that time, he may come present. He has very fairly stated that if he is not present or does not send by reply, she may still be allowed to meet the child subject to the permission of the Principal/Warden of the Hostel. But in no case the Principal/Warden of the Hostel shall allow her to take the child from the Hostel to any place. Even if there is a change in the school, the visitation rights shall remain the same. 8. But in no case the Principal/Warden of the Hostel shall allow her to take the child from the Hostel to any place. Even if there is a change in the school, the visitation rights shall remain the same. 8. After hearing the parties, I am of the considered opinion that it shall be in the interest of the parties that the petition is allowed and the marriage is dissolved. Consequently, the petition is allowed and the marriage solemnised between Smt. Navjot Kaur wife of Shri Balwinder Singh daughter of late Shri Avtar Singh Bajwa and Balwinder Singh son of Shri Jarnail Singh is dissolved. 9. Office is directed to draw the decree accordingly. 10. So far as the visitation rights of the wife are concerned she shall be allowed to visit the child but during the reasonable hours wherever the child may have been housed, i.e. house of the husband or any other person which includes all relations and the school hostel as well. The visitation rights are granted to her till the child attains the age of majority. Upon attaining the age of majority, it shall be absolutely the discretion of the child to meet or not to meet, live or not to live with any of the persons. Appeal allowed.