Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 1053 (PNJ)

Harbhajan Singh v. Balbir Kaur

2005-09-30

NIRMAL YADAV

body2005
ORDER Nirmal Yadav, J. - This is an appeal filed by the husband against the judgment and decree dated 2.4.1998 passed by Shri H.P. Handa, Additional District Judge, Hoshiarpur. The husband had filed a petition under Section 13(1)(ia) & (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, for short the Act, for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce. The said petition was dismissed by the Additional District Judge against which the husband filed the present appeal. 2. Both the parties are litigating since 1995 as the petition for divorce was filed on 29.7.1995. During the pendency of the appeal both the parties agreed to seek divorce by mutual consent and they have filed an application for amending the petition for divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) & (ib) of the Act to one under Section 13-B of the said Act, for granting divorce by mutual consent. Parties are present in the Court. Petition under Section 13-B of the Act is also filed along with the application. They have made statements in support of averments made in the petition for divorce by mutual consent. It is stated that the parties could not live together on account of their different temperaments. Their differences have reached beyond reconciliation. They have been living separately since one year prior to filing of the divorce petition. They now want to seek divorce by mutual consent. 3. The husband has paid Rs. six lacs in lumpsum to the wife on account of permanent alimony and all future claims vide two demand drafts bearing Nos. 243722 and 440903 of Rs. three lacs each. The wife has accepted a sum of Rs. six lacs on account of permanent alimony and any other claim against the husband. She has stated that she will not make any claim in future against the husband. She shall also withdraw all the cases against the husband including the one filed under Section 125 Criminal Procedure Code pending before the learned Magistrate at Hoshiarpur. 4. The parties have not been able to live together harmoniously for the last more than ten years. Petition for dissolution of marriage was filed in the year 1995, which was dismissed in 1998. Appeal against the said judgment and decree was filed by the husband in the year 1998 itself. The parties are living separately and have not been able to reconcile their differences. Petition for dissolution of marriage was filed in the year 1995, which was dismissed in 1998. Appeal against the said judgment and decree was filed by the husband in the year 1998 itself. The parties are living separately and have not been able to reconcile their differences. Now both of them have decided to part ways by mutual consent. In this view of the matter, it would not be in the interest of both the parties to make them bear the agony any more. Accordingly, the judgment and decree dated 2.4.1998 are set aside and the petition for divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) & (ib) of the Act is converted into one under Section 13-B of the said Act for dissolution of marriage between the parties by mutual consent. 5. In view of the statements made by both the parties, I am of the view that it would be in the interest of both the parties to dissolve the marriage by mutual consent. Therefore, the marriage between the parties is ordered to be dissolved by decree of divorce by mutual consent. I order accordingly. Order accordingly.