Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 579 (ORI)

Gadadhar Sahoo v. Gitanjali Das

2014-09-08

S.K.SAHOO, VINOD PRASAD

body2014
JUDGMENT VINOD PRASAD, J.- This appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") has been filed by the appellant/husband-Gadadhar Sahoo against the impugned order dated 16.07.2011 passed in C.P. No. 203 of 2010, Gadadhar Sahoo versus Gitanjali Das, by learned Judge, Family Court, Bhubaneswar, by which learned Judge, Family Court, has dismissed appellant/ husband's application for divorce against respondent wife under Section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. 2. During pendency of this appeal, both the parties settled their disputes outside the court by mutual understanding and accorded a compromise and as a follow up action filed two Misc. Applications being Misc. Case No. 123 of 2014 and Misc. Case No. 124 of 2014, verifying the contents of both the applications on their personal affidavits. By a joint reading of both the applications, it is evident that both the spouses, husband and wife, have pleaded that they have stuck a compromise and have reached an amicable settlement and therefore they jointly prayed that their nuptial knot be dissolved by a judgment of divorce by mutual consent as envisaged under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act. To fall back on the exact pleadings averments made in paragraphs land 4 of Misc. Case No. 123 of 2014, which are relevant for the present purpose, are reproduced herein below: "1. That, both parties are willing ton settle the dispute amicably for all times to come. It is agreed that let there be mutual divorce among them fixing permanent alimony for Rs. 3 lakh. The appellant husband has also agreed to the aforesaid proposal. 4. In view of the willingness of both parties for settlement of the dispute, and the appeal being continuation of the suit, this Hon'ble Court is competent to pass appropriate order admitting joint petition for mutual divorce and also to drop the proceeding u/s 125 Cr. P.C. in Cr. P. No. 84/2010 pending before the Judge Family Court, Bhubaneswar." 3. The prayer made in the aforesaid application was to pass appropriate orders for amicable settlement and to allow the joint petition under section 13-B. of the Hindu Marriage Act and also to drop .the maintenance proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. initiated by the wife Smt. Gitanjali Das, being Cr.P. No. 84 of 2010 pending on the file of the Judge, Family Court, Bhubaneswar. As already mentioned both the appellant/husband-Gadadhar Das and the respondent /wife-Smt. Gitanjali Das have given their respective affidavits swearing the contents of this application to be based on their personal knowledge. 4. So also Misc. Case No. 124 of 2014 has been filed by both the spouses sweared on their affidavits, wherein they have mentioned as under: "1. That both parties are willing to settle the dispute amicably for all times to come. It is agreed that let there be mutual divorce among them fixing permanent alimony for Rs.3 lakh The appellant husband has also agreed to the aforesaid proposal. The respondent agreed to receive the said amount by Demand Draft. 2. That in view of settlement of dispute the marriage tie be dissolve forthwith. 3. That the wife-respondent has also agreed not to claim any maintenance either in Cr.P.No.84/201 0 or in any future litigation. 4. That, the wife/respondent received demand draft 210096 dated 17.07.2014 of Rs.2,00,000 (Rupees two lakhs) only in favour of Gitanjali Das as part alimony. Balance shall be paid on the date of order.” 5. The prayer in the aforesaid miscellaneous case is to allow the application in terms of the compromise and dissolve the marriage by a judgment of divorce by mutual consent. 6. With above adumbrated factual matrix when we delineate to the lex, it is manifest that the Act (The Family Courts Act, 1984) was infused with life on 14.9.84 with a solemn rudimentary aim ".. to provide for the establishment of the Family Courts with a view to promote conciliation in, and secure speedy settlement of disputes relating to marriage and family affairs and for matters connected therewith". One of the pivotal object of the enactment is to "make it obligatory on the part of the Family Court to endeavor, in the first instance to effect a reconciliation or-a settlement between the parties to a family dispute. During this stage, the proceedings will be informal and the rigid rules of procedure shall not apply." In this connection we can draw corroborative support from Anil Bahal versus Manju : AIR 1989 All 9 , wherein it has been held as under: "3. During this stage, the proceedings will be informal and the rigid rules of procedure shall not apply." In this connection we can draw corroborative support from Anil Bahal versus Manju : AIR 1989 All 9 , wherein it has been held as under: "3. It is relevant to refer to the various provisions of the aforesaid Family Court which was established with the object that the said Family Courts ought to adopt an approach radically different from that adopted in ordinary civil proceedings and that it should further make reasonable efforts at settlement before the commencement of the trial. "An embodiment of the aims sought to be achieved through the Act can also be gathered from the fact no appeal under section 19(2) of the Act has been provided for where the decree or order has been passed with the consent of this parties, See Ajay Kapoor. versus Pramila Kapoor: AIR 1992 All 283 . Thus the trite law which emerges is that in family disputes the settlement arrived at by the contesting sides should be accorded primacy and no rigid rule of procedure or technicalities stands in the way of the courts to settle the disputes according to agreed terms of conciliations or compromises. 7. Resurrecting the circumstances and later developments of the appeal at hand both the appellant husband and respondent wife have struck a compromise and one of the stipulations in it was that the appellant husband shall pay to the wife Rs. Three lacs (Rs.300000 only), which, the husband has abided and has already paid and the wife acknowledged the receipt of the same. This is apparent from our order dated 13.8.2014, wherein it has been recorded as under: "On 11.08.2014, the respondent wife was handed over draft no.21022 dated 07.08.2014 for an amount of Rs.1, 00,000 (Rupees one lakh). Since there was a wrong mention regarding the title of the wife, the appellant husband, has got the aforesaid draft cancelled and in that behalf he has received a new draft being no. 210254 dated 12.08.2014 for the same amount. The said corrected draft is handed over to the wife-Gitanjali Das in Court today. She is - directed to make an endorsement in the order sheet regarding receipt of the same. 210254 dated 12.08.2014 for the same amount. The said corrected draft is handed over to the wife-Gitanjali Das in Court today. She is - directed to make an endorsement in the order sheet regarding receipt of the same. In this matrimonial appeal, the husband and wife have settled the dispute on payment of RS.3,00,000 (Rupees three lakhs) as mentioned in the order dated 11.08.2014. The wife had already received Rs.2,00,000 (Rupees two lakhs) earlier. The residue has been paid to her today in Court. In view of the aforesaid the entire proceeding between the wife and husband now stands fully and finally settled. List this appeal again on 18.08.2014 for final order. Xerox copy of the draft has been filed, which is kept on record and shall form apart of the record." 8. Subsequently on 19.08.2014 both the parties appeared along with their respective counsel and the matter was heard finally and judgment was reserved, which is now being delivered. 9. In view of the joint agreement between husband and wife, as is clear from Misc. Case Nos. 123 of 2014 and 124 of 2014, and as has been urged by both the sides, the prayer of appellant and respondents are accepted and their marriage is dissolved by divorce by mutual consent under Section 13-8 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The wife has already received Rs. 1,00,000 (Rupees three lakhs) as permanent alimony, which is in full and final settlement of all the disputes between her and the appellant/husband, Gadadhar Sahoo. Claim petition by,the wife under section 125 Cr.P.C. being Cr.P.No.84 of 2010 pending before the learned Judge, Family Court, Bhubaneswar, since has been prayed to be quashed, it is hereby quashed. The marriage between appellant and respondent is hereby dissolved and consequentially all the proceedings between them shall cease in accordance with law. 10. The Matrimonial appeal is decided as above and there shall be no order as to costs. S.K.SAHOO, J. I agree.