Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 142 (PNJ)

Sandeep Kumar v. Kiran

2011-01-13

RAJESH BINDAL

body2011
JUDGMENT Mr. Rajesh Bindal J.: - Challenge in the present appeal by the appellant husband is to the judgment and decree of the learned court below whereby petition filed by the respondent wife under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short, “the Act”), for dissolution of marriage was allowed. During the pendency of the appeal, the same was amended and converted into a petition under Section 13-B of the Act for divorce by mutual consent. 2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the marriage of the parties was solemnised on 12.12.1999 as per Hindu rites at Amritsar. Out of the wedlock one son, namely, Chirag Sharma, was born. Due to temperamental differences, the parties could not pull on together. They are living separate since 2005. Petition filed by the wife for dissolution of marriage was allowed by the learned Additional District Judge, Amritsar, on 4.4.2009. This judgment and decree has been impugned by the husband before this court. 3. During the pendency of the appeal before this court, to explore possibility of settlement, the matter was referred to the Mediation and Conciliation Centre in the High Court, where the same was compromised on 13.7.2010. As per compromise, son namely, Chirag Sharma will remain in the custody of the mother. A sum of Rs.3,80,000/- was settled as permanent alimony payable to the wife and the minor son. 4. Today both the parties were present in person in court. They were identified by their respective counsels. Their joint statement, which has been recorded separately today, is extracted as under:- “Our marriage was solemnised as per Hindu rites on 12.12.1999 at Amritsar. Out of our wedlock one son, namely, Chirag Sharma, was born. Due to the temperamental differences, we could not live together. We are living separate since 2005. Number of efforts made for reconciliation failed. Petition filed by the wife before the Additional District Judge, Amritsar, under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, for dissolution of marriage was allowed on 4.4.2009. During the pendency of appeal before this court by the husband, the matter in dispute was compromised on 13.7.2010 before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre in the High Court. As per compromise, the parties decided to part ways. During the pendency of appeal before this court by the husband, the matter in dispute was compromised on 13.7.2010 before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre in the High Court. As per compromise, the parties decided to part ways. As per the settlement, the parties have withdrawn all the cases filed by them against each other and their respective family members, except one FIR No. 52 dated 14.11.2007, registered under Section 498-A IPC at Police Station, Chhehratta, District Amritsar, the petition filed for quashing thereof is pending in this court for 1.3.2011. The wife has no objection to the quashing of the aforesaid FIR on the basis of compromise. She will appear in court to state so, in case so required. However, in case of her non-appearance, the statement made today be taken as no objection to the quashing of the aforesaid FIR. The child, namely, Chirag Sharma, will remain in the custody of the mother. Rs.3,80,000/- were settled as permanent alimony for the wife and the minor son. Out of which Rs.1,25,000/- were paid vide bank draft nos. 000498, 000499, 000500 dated 12.11.2010 drawn on State Bank of Patiala, Amritsar, and Rs.2,55,000/- vide draft no. 4841151 dated 9.12.2010 drawn on Oriental Bank of Commerce. Both the parties will abide by the terms of settlement arrived at before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre in the High Court on 13.7.2010. We have no objection if a decree of divorce by way of mutual consent is passed.” 5. The parties have settled their disputes amicably and got their statement recorded to this effect, which was not found to be under any pressure or coercion. The wife has received a sum of Rs.3,80,000/- as full and final settlement towards permanent alimony. Out of which Rs.1,25,000/- were paid vide bank draft nos. 000498, 000499, 000500 dated 12.11.2010 drawn on State Bank of Patiala, Amritsar, and Rs.2,55,000/- vide draft no. 4841151 dated 9.12.2010 drawn on Oriental Bank of Commerce. The wife has no objection to the quashing of FIR No. 52 dated 14.11.2007, registered under Section 498-A IPC at Police Station, Chhehratta, District Amritsar on compromise basis. A petition for which is pending in this court for 1.3.2011. She will appear in court on the date fixed to get her statement recorded. However, in case of her non-appearance, the aforesaid statement will be taken as no objection to the quashing of the aforesaid FIR. A petition for which is pending in this court for 1.3.2011. She will appear in court on the date fixed to get her statement recorded. However, in case of her non-appearance, the aforesaid statement will be taken as no objection to the quashing of the aforesaid FIR. The custody of the son will remain with the mother. The parties will abide by the terms of settlement arrived at before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre in the High Court on 13.7.2010 and the aforesaid statement made by them. They have no objection if the decree of divorce by way of mutual consent is passed. 6. Considering the aforesaid facts and finding the statement to be bonafide, a decree of divorce by way of mutual consent is passed, dissolving the marriage of Sandeep Kumar son of Shiv Kumar Rampal and Kiran daughter of late Shri Chaudhary Ram Lubhaya Sharma. The judgment of learned Court below is modified to the extent mentioned above. 7. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly. Decree sheet be prepared. ----------------