Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 695 (GUJ)

PREETI v. RAJESH

2011-09-27

JAYANT M.PATEL, R.M.CHHAYA

body2011
JUDGMENT : JAYANT PATEL, J. 1. First Appeal No. 3121 of 2010 arises against judgment and order dated 20.4.2009 passed by Family Court, Ahmedabad below Petition No. 713 of 2001, whereas First Appeal No. 3122 of 2010 arises against the judgment and order dated 20.4.2009 passed by Family Court, Ahmedabad below Review Application No. 2 of 2004. 2. We may record that appellant-Preeti R. Ranka in both the matters is wife and respondent-Rajesh Maganlal Ranka is the husband, as per the proceedings before the Family Court. In Family Suit No. 132 of 2001, judgment and order was passed on the basis that there was mutual divorce to be taken u/s 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 but the case of the appellant was that in her place some other lady was produced and the Court was misled. When it came to the knowledge of the appellant, the appellant preferred review application in the proceedings and the Family Court dismissed the review application, against which the present appeals before this Court. 3. We may record that as it was a dispute between the wife and husband, we had referred the matter to the Mediation Centre of this Court vide order dated 11.5.2011 passed in Civil Application No. 1522 of 2011 in First Appeal No. 1321 of 2010, which reads as under: The application is for directing interim maintenance for applicant No. 1-wife and applicant No. 2-daughter. We have heard Mr. Belsare, learned Advocate for the applicants and Mr. Kotecha, learned Advocate for the respondent. 4. It was submitted by Mr. Kotecha, at the outset fairly that, his client is ready to bear the maintenance of his daughter-applicant No. 2. 5. Hence, considering the facts and circumstances, we direct that the respondent shall pay maintenance of Rs. 3,000 p.m. from May 2011 onwards, and the first maintenance shall be paid on or before 10.6.2011. It is further observed that the FDR with the State Bank of India having maturity value of Rs. 1,01,221, shall continue to remain as investment, and respondent undertakes to abide by the same. 6. 3,000 p.m. from May 2011 onwards, and the first maintenance shall be paid on or before 10.6.2011. It is further observed that the FDR with the State Bank of India having maturity value of Rs. 1,01,221, shall continue to remain as investment, and respondent undertakes to abide by the same. 6. So far as the maintenance of applicant No. 1- wife is concerned, we find that before this Court examines the aspects of right of maintenance of the wife or otherwise, since it is a dispute between husband and wife, it would be just and proper, if the matter is referred to the Mediation Centre for amicable settlement for all times to come. 7. Hence, office shall refer the matter to the Mediation Centre. Attempt shall be made to settle the dispute between the parties, preferably within a period of three months. Thereafter, if the dispute is not settled, matter shall be placed on judicial side for appropriate orders. 8. Under the circumstances, no decision is rendered on the aspects of the entitlement of maintenance to the wife applicant No. 1 herein. In the event the matter is not settled, it would be open to the applicant No. 1 to move appropriate application for interim maintenance, if otherwise permissible in law. The application disposed of accordingly. It appears that thereafter before the Mediation Centre the case was registered as Mediation Case No. 43 of 2011 and ultimately a settlement has been arrived at between appellant No. 1 wife and the respondent-husband on 30.8.2011. There is a report of the mediator and a xerox copy of the settlement is also forwarded with the report. When the appeals are taken up for hearing appellant No. 1, with her Advocate Mr. Belsare, is present and the respondent-Rajesh Maganlal Ranka is also present, who has been identified by appellant No. 1. They both confirmed that the settlement is entered into and accordingly the matters may be disposed of. We find that when it is a matter between the wife and husband and they have settled the issue, the same can be allowed to operate. Under the circumstances, the present appeals are disposed of in terms of the settlement dated 30.8.2011 made before the Mediation Centre of this Court and admitted and confirmed by this Court. The rights of the parties shall stand governed as per the terms of the settlement dated 30.8.2011. 9. Under the circumstances, the present appeals are disposed of in terms of the settlement dated 30.8.2011 made before the Mediation Centre of this Court and admitted and confirmed by this Court. The rights of the parties shall stand governed as per the terms of the settlement dated 30.8.2011. 9. Both the appeals are disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs. Registry to place a copy of this order in connected matter.