Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 902 (PNJ)

Ravinderpal Singh v. Ranjit Kaur

2004-08-17

AJAY K.MITTAL

body2004
JUDGMENT Ajay Kumar Mittal, J. - Ravinder Pal Singh, the appellant herein filed a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short "the Act") against his wife Ranjit Kaur, 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, Amritsar by judgment and decree dated 12.2.2002. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the appellant- husband has preferred the present appeal, which was admitted to regular hearing on 7.3.2002. 2. During the pendency of the appeal, it seems that on the intervention of respective members of both the families, the parties have arrived at some compromise and, therefore, the appellant filed Civil Misc. No. 10194/C.II of 2004 for disposal of the appeal on the basis of the said compromise, a copy of which was attached to the application as Annexure A/1. A joint petition under Section 13-B of the Act for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce by mutual consent was also placed on record. 3. Today, the parties came present in Court and made their statements. The parties have been duly identified by their respective counsel. It is clear from their statements that the parties were married as per Sikh rites on 13.12.1997 and a male child namely Simarpal Singh was born out of this wedlock on 28.9.1998. They have moved a joint petition under Section 13-B of the Act, which is duly signed by them of their own volition and without any pressure or coercion from any quarter. They have decided to dissolve the marriage by a decree of divorce by mutual consent. It is further evident from their statements that the appellant-husband has agreed to pay a sum of Rs. seven lacs to the respondent-wife as permanent alimony and as a one-time settlement. A sum of rupees five lacs in the shape of four bankers cheques has been paid by the appellant to the respondent in the Court today and the remaining amount of rupees two lacs, which has already been paid by the appellant-husband and is lying with a common relation of the parties has to be deposited in fixed deposit in the name of the minor child-Simarpal Singh. Both the parties have further stated they will withdraw all civil and criminal cases filed against each other and pending either in the Courts or with the police. It is also stated by the parties that they have been living separately from each other since October, 1998. It is also clear from their statements that they have agreed to dissolve their marriage by a decree of divorce by mutual consent and they have made a specific prayer in this regard. Regarding the custody of the minor child Master Simarpal Singh born out of their wedlock, it has been stated in the compromise (Annexure A-1) as well as in their joint petition that he would continue to live in care and custody of the respondent, who will be his natural guardian. 4. In view of the statements of the parties made in Court today and the compromise Annexure A-1 having been arrived at between the parties, I am satisfied that the marriage between the parties has broken down irretrievably and their matrimonial home cannot function any longer. I also find that the parties have been living separately from each other since October, 1998 and they have agreed to dissolve their marriage by a decree of divorce by mutual consent. In Smt. Chander Kanta v. Mohinder Partap Dogra, 2003(3) RCR(Civil) 72, Balwinder Singh v. Raj Rani, 2001(2) Civil Court Cases 705 (P&H), Ved Parkash v. Manju, 1998(3) RCR(Civil) 44 and Suresh Chand v. Kusum alias Sushma, 1998(1) RCR(Civil) 543, 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. Appeal allowed.