Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 2662 (MAD)

Meenakshi @ Sudha v. RM. Palaniappan @ Prabakaran

2009-07-24

N.KIRUBAKARAN

body2009
Judgment : The above Transfer Civil Miscellaneous petition has been filed by the petitioner/wife seeking for transfer of H.M.O.P.No.297 of 2008 from the file of the learned Third Additional Sub-Judge, Madurai, to the file of the learned Sub-Judge, Pudukkottai. 2. H.M.O.P.No.297 of 2008 was filed by the husband under Section 12(1)(a) and 13(1)(i.a) of the Hindu Marriage Act and the same is pending before the learned Sub-Judge, Madurai. The petitioner/wife filed in Criminal M.P.No.3686 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate. Thirunayam as a private complaint under Sections 114, 498(A), read with Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and Domestic Violence of Women's Act, under Sections 17, 18(D) (E) 19 (8)(7)(20)(23) seeking a direction to register a case and to investigate the case against the respondent/husband and two others and the same is pending. 3. Notice was issued to the respondent and interim stay of all further proceedings was also ordered on 19.2.2009. 4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent. 5. Since the matter relates to the dispute between the husband and wife, this Court, directed, the petitioner as well as the respondent to appear before this Court to find out whether there was any possibility of re-union. While passing order for appearance of the parties, this Court took into consideration age of the husband who is aged about 34 years having qualification in B.E Mechanical Engineering and petitioner/wife is aged about 24 years having qualification in B.Tech (Bio-Information Technology). 6. On 8.7.2009, both parties appeared before this Court. On enquiry from them, it was learnt that they lived together only for twenty days and both the parties were firm on their stand not to get re-united, inspite of conciliation by this Court. In view of that, the other option was suggested to solve the problem and find out a mutually agreed solution that is for mutual consent divorce. The parties were explained about long drawn battle in the Court wasting their youth and time. Both learned counsels are directed to consult their parties accordingly with their parties to come for mutual understanding. After consultation, it was informed that both parties expressed their willingness to approach the learned III Additional Subordinate Judge, Madurai for mutual divorce and put an end to all the proceedings pending between them. 7. Both learned counsels are directed to consult their parties accordingly with their parties to come for mutual understanding. After consultation, it was informed that both parties expressed their willingness to approach the learned III Additional Subordinate Judge, Madurai for mutual divorce and put an end to all the proceedings pending between them. 7. Taking into consideration of the above developments, the parties were directed to (sic) prepare a petition to be filed before the learned III Additional Subordinate Judge, Madurai for mutual consent under Section 13(1)(b) of Hindu Marriage Act. The said petition was prepared by the learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. VR. Shanmuganathan and was approved by Mr. R. Venkateswaran, learned counsel for the respondent. Both the parties did go through the petition and also consented for them by affixing their signatures. 8. As per the understanding, the respondent was required to return the jewelery given by the petitioner. Four diamond and gold jewelries are required had to foe returned to the petitioner. Out of which gold diamond jeweleries numbering four and gold jeweleries eight were returned on 20.7.2009 and the same was received by the petitioner on proper acknowledgment in the presence of both learned counsels. 9. Regarding the articles, the petitioner was required to return the articles which was given during the marriage and the same were taken from the respondent on 19.7.2009 in the presence of the counsel for the petitioner and another representative of the counsel for the respondent. However, the petitioner represented that one silver article and certain sarees were not returned. 10. Today (24.7.2009), when the matter was taken up, both the learned counsels for the petitioner and respondent are present along with their parties. 11. After deliberations, the following understanding was reached: The respondent/husband has to return the silver articles (14) belonging to the petitioner and a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- + Rs.5,000/-. As far as the petitioner/wife is concerned, she has to return silver articles 5, and one gold chain to the respondent. After the exchange of those items, no article or jeweleries of any kind or cash are required to be given by or returned by each of the parties. The parties have assured in the presence of their advocates that they would exchange of articles and cash on 28.7.2009 or on subsequent date before the learned III Additional Sub-Judge, Madurai. 12. After the exchange of those items, no article or jeweleries of any kind or cash are required to be given by or returned by each of the parties. The parties have assured in the presence of their advocates that they would exchange of articles and cash on 28.7.2009 or on subsequent date before the learned III Additional Sub-Judge, Madurai. 12. Onsuch return, the parties have to present the consent divorce petition before the learned Third Additional Sub-Judge, Madurai for mutual consent. On such presentation of the petition, the trial Court as directed to pass orders in the consent application for divorce in accordance with law on the same day. 13. In paragraph 8' of the consent petition, the second petitioner namely wife undertook to withdraw the Criminal M.P.No.3686 of 2008 pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Thirumayam on production of a copy of the mutual petition in H.M.O.P.No.297 of 2008. 14. She undertook to withdraw the Criminal M.P.No.3686 of 2008 and the same has to be done by her on 29.7.2009 or on the next day, if there is any inconvenience on 29.7.2009. The learned judicial magistrate is directed to take note of consent petition filed by both the parties as well as the order to be passed in H.M.O.P.No.297 of 2008 and allow the petitioner/wife to withdraw the complaint unconditionally. 15. This Court passes this order only based on the agreement entered into between the parties and on their own volition. In view of the settlement, no claim of any kind shall be raised against each other. The consent petition filed in H.M.O.P.No.297 of 2008 forms part of this order. Any violation of any of the conditions in the agreement as well as the order will be deemed to be violation of the Court order. 16. When this Court ordered for appearance of the parties by order dated 26.6.2009, the prime consideration of the Court was the interest of the parties. Considering the age and qualification, this Court required the presence of the parties. Since conciliation failed, this Court gave details of the consequences of prolonged fight in the Court inviting mental torture agony, and lack of piece of mind for them. This Court advised to put an end to the dispute once for all and start a fresh life. Considering the age and qualification, this Court required the presence of the parties. Since conciliation failed, this Court gave details of the consequences of prolonged fight in the Court inviting mental torture agony, and lack of piece of mind for them. This Court advised to put an end to the dispute once for all and start a fresh life. Though it may appear that this Court cannot take such an exercise in Transfer petition under Section 24 of Code of Civil Procedure, this Court is convinced that it is exercising the equity and inherent jurisdiction to render complete justice to the parties. This kind of family disputes require immediate and quick relief in the interest of the parties. The Court can adventure into unconventional methods and procedures within the frame of law and the same cannot be found fault with. 17. Whether this Court has jurisdiction to settle the matter in transfer O.P has been answered for the judgment in Rajesh v. State of Rajasthan and Another 2009 AIR SCW 3646 (AIR SCW issue dated 24.6.2009). In that case, the transfer petition was filed by the husband for transfer of Criminal case filed by the respondent. The transfer petition was ordered to be posted before Supreme Court Lok Adalat and as a result of mediation, the matter was settled. The settlement reached by the parties was reported to the Honourable Supreme Court and the Honourable Supreme Court passed the following orders. "It is further agreed that in terms of this settlement arrived at here in above decree for divorce may be passed. No further claim of any kind shall be raised against each other or with regard to the minor child Lucky hereinafter". In para 4' of the said judgment that it is heartening to note that the parties have settled their disputes amicably and have agreed to the aforesaid terms. The transfer petition is disposed of in terms of the settlement. The petition incorporating the terms of settlement shall form a part of the record. 18. So, even the Supreme Court passed orders directing the parties to settle while deciding the transfer petition. In another case in R. Manjula v. Raja 2009 AIR SCW 2495 transfer petition was filed by the wife. The petition incorporating the terms of settlement shall form a part of the record. 18. So, even the Supreme Court passed orders directing the parties to settle while deciding the transfer petition. In another case in R. Manjula v. Raja 2009 AIR SCW 2495 transfer petition was filed by the wife. During the pendency of the matter, the Honourable Supreme Court directed the parties to appear before the District Mediation Centre, Vellore to accept the possibility of settling the dispute. In view of the Mediation, the couple got re-united. Based on the report of Mediation Centre, the Honourable Supreme Court closed the proceedings in the HMOP and disposed of the transfer petition accordingly. The above judgments also support the procedure adopted by this Court. 19. In the above terms, the Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P. (MD) No.1 of 2008 is closed.c