Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 777 (PNJ)

Dharmender Singh v. Raj Bala

2004-07-28

AJAY K.MITTAL

body2004
Judgment Ajay Kumar Mittal, J. 1. Dharmender Singh, the appellant herein filed a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act (for short the Act) against his wife Raj Bala, the present respondent for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce, primarily on the ground that the respondent is guilty of causing mental cruelty to him. The petition was, however, dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Sirsa by judgment and decree dated 1.2.2001. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the appellant-husband has preferred the present appeal, which was admitted to regular hearing on 8.3.2001. 2. During the pendency of the appeal, it seems that a sort of amicable settlement was arrived at between the parties and they decided to part with the company of each other for all times to come. Accordingly, the present Civil Misc. Application No. 11812/C.II of 2004 has been moved on behalf of the appellant with a prayer that petition under Section 13 of the Act for the grant of decree of divorce may be converted to that of a petition under Section 13 of the Act for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce by mutual consent. It is averred in the application that with the intervention of the Panchayat, a compromise has been arrived at between the parties and the parties have mutually agreed to part with the company of each other. It is further averred in the application that the respondent-wife has already got an amount of Rs. 4,30,000/- from the appellant-husband as permanent alimony under one-time settlement and she has further agreed to not to claim any maintenance allowance from the appellant in future. It is further stated in the application that proceedings initiated by the respondent under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Sirsa have already been withdrawn by her on 27.9.2003. A petition under section 13-B of the Act duly signed by both the parties has also been filed along with the application. 3. Upon notice, Mr. Suresh Monga, Advocate, put in appearance on behalf of the respondent-wife and submitted that the respondent has no objection to the prayer made in the application being granted. The appellant and the respondent are physically present in the Court who have been duly identified by their respective counsel. Their statements have been recorded in the Court separately. Upon notice, Mr. Suresh Monga, Advocate, put in appearance on behalf of the respondent-wife and submitted that the respondent has no objection to the prayer made in the application being granted. The appellant and the respondent are physically present in the Court who have been duly identified by their respective counsel. Their statements have been recorded in the Court separately. Both of them stated on solemn affirmation that they were married according to Hindu rites and ceremonies on 25.6.1994 and due to certain reasons, their matrimonial home could not function properly and they have been staying separately from each other for the last about 7/8 years. They further stated that they have mutually agreed to dissolve their marriage by a decree of divorce by mutual consent. It has been further stated by them that their joint petition Under Section 13-B of the Act, which bears their signatures, may be accepted. Besides, the respondent-wife has also stated that she had received a sum of Rs. 4,30,000/- from the appellant as permanent alimony and she will not claim any maintenance from him in future. 4. In Smt. Chander Kanta v. Mohinder Partap Dogra, 2003(3) R.C.R. (Civil) 72, Balwinder Singh v. Raj Rani, 2000(3) R.C.R. (Civil) 399 (P&H):2001(2) Civil Court Cases 705 (P&H), Ved Parkash v. Manju, 1998(3) R.C.R. (Civil) 44 and Suresh Chand v. Kusum alias Sushma (1998-3)120 P.L.R. 181, it has been held that the statutory period of six months after notice for grant of decree of divorce under Section 13-B of the Act can be dispensed with if the circumstances so warrant and where consent of the parties has not been obtained by fraud, force or undue influence. It has further been held that the period of six months can be dispensed with also in cases where the parties are litigating for a considerable long time. 5. In the present case, the petition for divorce was filed by the appellant-husband on 17.9.1996 before the Additional District Judge, Sirsa, which was dismissed on 1.2.2001. The present appeal against the said judgment and decree passed by the trial Court was admitted on 8.3.2001. 5. In the present case, the petition for divorce was filed by the appellant-husband on 17.9.1996 before the Additional District Judge, Sirsa, which was dismissed on 1.2.2001. The present appeal against the said judgment and decree passed by the trial Court was admitted on 8.3.2001. It has not been disputed by learned counsel for both the parties that ever since the filing of the petition before the trial Court, the parties are not cohabiting and are living separately from each other for the last about 7/8 years and marriage between the parties has broken down irretrievably. Further they have mutually agreed to part with the company of each for all times to come and have made a prayer that their joint petition under section 13-B of the Act may be accepted and the marriage be dissolved by a decree of divorce by mutual consent. 6. In view of the aforesaid and considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, this application is allowed as prayed. Accordingly, the joint petition under Section 13-B of the Act of the parties is accepted and the marriage between the parties is dissolved by a decree of divorce by mutual consent. The judgment and decree dated 1.2.2001 passed by the Additional District Judge, Sirsa is set aside as it stands substituted by the decree under Section 13-B of the Act. The parties shall remain bound by their statements made in Court today. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly. The parties will bear their own costs throughout.