Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 483 (UTT)

SHALINI DHIMAN v. MANOJ KUMAR

2009-09-16

PRAFULLA C.PANT, V.K.BIST

body2009
JUDGMENT [Per : Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. (Oral)] This appeal, preferred under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, is directed against the order dated 05.04.2008, passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Dehradun, in Suit No. 91 of 2008, whereby the said court has rejected the compromise between the parties. 2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant. No one turned up on behalf of the respondent. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant filed petition under Section 11 read with Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, for declaration that marriage with respondent be declared null and void, on the ground that the same was got performed by playing fraud on the petitioner. The summons were issued to the respondent by the trial court. On the third date parties to the suit entered into compromise which they filed on 05.04.2008, in the form of 10-A before the trial court, wherein they agreed that marriage performed between them on 13.11.2007 be declared null and void. The trial court observed that it appears that parties are in collusion and rejected the compromise. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that Section 20 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, only provides that the petitioner who files a petition under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (except the one moved under Section 11 of the Act) shall state that there is no collusion between the parties. He further contended that it does not say that the parties cannot enter into compromise after the filing of the petition. We agree with the contention of learned counsel for the appellant as the parties to the matrimony can always enter into compromise after filing of the petition, else the purpose of sub-section (2) of Section 23 of the aforesaid Act for reconciliation would get frustrated. What is relevant in the present case is that Section 20, as amended vide Act No. 68 of 1976, clearly provides that it is not required in a petition moved under Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, to mention that parties are not in collusion. Therefore, since, the petition in question filed by the petitioner was under Section 11 read with Section 12 of the Act, the compromise between the parties could not have been thrown on the ground of ‘collusion’ between the parties. 5. For the reasons as discussed above, this appeal is allowed. Therefore, since, the petition in question filed by the petitioner was under Section 11 read with Section 12 of the Act, the compromise between the parties could not have been thrown on the ground of ‘collusion’ between the parties. 5. For the reasons as discussed above, this appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 5th of April 2008, is set aside. The Suit No. 91 of 2008, filed by the petitioner Shalini under Section 11 read with Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, shall stand decreed in terms of compromise 10-A. The information of declaration of the marriage between the parties on 13.11.2007 as null and void shall be sent by the trial court to the Registrar Hindu Marriage, Dehradun, with reference to Registration No. 866 of 2007. (Stay Application No. 1877 of 2008 also stands disposed of, accordingly).