Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 2316 (RAJ)

Shyam Sunder S/o Shri Ramganesh v. Krishna Verma W/o Shyam Sunder

2018-12-19

GOVERDHAN BARDHAR, MOHAMMAD RAFIQ

body2018
JUDGMENT : The appeal being D. B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.861/2018 on behalf of the appellant-husband Shyam Sunder has been filed under Section 19 of the Family Court Act, 1984, challenging the order dated 15.11.2017 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court No.1, Jaipur (for short ‘the Family Court’), whereby the application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’) filed by the respondent-wife has been allowed and the appellant has been directed to pay Rs. 5,000/- per month as maintenance to the respondent-wife from the date of filing of the application i.e. 01.05.2017 till disposal of main petition under Section 13 of the Act, Rs. 5,500/- as litigation expenses and Rs. 500/- as travelling expenses for appearance on each date of hearing. This matter has come up on the board for orders on the joint application filed by both the parties bearing inward no.96319/18.12.2018 under Section 13(B) of the Act contending that marriage of the parties was solemnized on 11.05.2011. Out of their wedlock a daughter namely Vanshika was born on 08.09.2012. Thereafter, dispute arose between the parties and a petition under Section 13(1)(A)(B) of the Act was filed by the appellant-husband before the Family Court. On the other hand criminal proceedings under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 were initiated by the respondent-wife against the husband and his family members and accordingly a Case No. 315/2016 came to be filed before the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate No. 19, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur which is still pending. The respondent-wife also filed an application for maintenance under Section 24 of the Act out of which present appeal arises. It is further contended that the dispute between the parties was referred to Mediation Centre attached to this Court and the parties have arrived at a settlement before the Mediation Centre on 27.11.2018. It is submitted that as per the terms of the settlement, the appellant-husband shall pay to the respondent-wife a lump sum amount of permanent alimony of Rs. 7,50,000/- in three installments and the respondent-wife shall withdraw Case No. 315/2016 pending before the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate No. 19, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur in addition to any/all proceedings pending against the husband and his family members. Proceedings of the compromise dated 27.11.2018 entered into between the parties, which were reduced in writing, has been placed on the record. 7,50,000/- in three installments and the respondent-wife shall withdraw Case No. 315/2016 pending before the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate No. 19, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur in addition to any/all proceedings pending against the husband and his family members. Proceedings of the compromise dated 27.11.2018 entered into between the parties, which were reduced in writing, has been placed on the record. The conditions of settlement arrived at between the parties before the Mediation Centre on 27.11.2018 read as under: ^^1- ;g fd izFke i{k ,oa f}rh; i{k dk ijLij fookg fnukad 11-05-2011 dks fgUnw jhfr fjoktkuqlkj t;iqj esa lEiUu gqvk FkkA 2- ;g fd 'kknh ds ckn izFke i{k ihgj ls fonk gksdj vius llqjky mijksDr of.kZr irksa ij ifr ds ?kj igqaph] tgka fd nksuksa i{k ds e/; nkEiR; lEcU/k LFkkfir gq;s] nksuksa ds nkEiR; lw=ksa ls ,d iq=h oaf’kdk fnukad 08-09-2012 dks mRiUu gqbZ] tks orZeku esa vius firk f}rh; i{k ds ikl v/;;u dj jgh gSA 3- ;g fd nksuksa i{k ds e/; fofHkUu&fofHkUu eqn~nksa ij fookn jgus yxs x;s] ftl dkj.k ls mDr fookg dk fuoZgu lq[ke; ugh jgk rFkk nksuaks ds e/; eu&eqVko brus c< x;s fd ijLij oSokfgd thou rukoxzLr o nq[ke; gks x;kA ftldk urhtk ;g fudyk fd izFke i{k us f}rh; i{k ,oa ifjtuksa ds fo:) fgalk ls L=h dk laj{k.k vf/kfu;e dk eqdnek nk;j dj fn;kA blh izdkj f}rh; i{k us Hkh fookg foPNsn dh ;kfpdk izFke i{k ds fo:) ikfjokfjd U;k;ky;] t;iqj esa nk;j dj j[kh gS] tks fopkjk/khu gSA 4- ;g fd f}rh; i{k] izFke i{k dks U;k;ky; ds vkns'kkuqlkj Hkj.k&iks"k.k jkf'k vnk dj jgk gSA 5- ;g fd nksuksa ifr&iRuh ds e/; oSokfgd czsd&Mkmu dh fLFkfr iSnk gks xbZ gS] ftl izdkj.k ls nksuksa gh ,d lkFk jgdj oSokfgd fj'rk ugha fuHkk ldrs ,oa dsoy fookg&foPNsn gh ,dek= fodYi 'ks"k gSA 6- ;g fd izFke i{k ,oa f}rh; i{k fnukad 19-05-2015 ls ,d nwljs ls vyx jgdj viuk&viuk thou O;rhr dj jgs gSa rFkk Hkfo"; esa ,slh dksbZ laHkkouk Hkh utj ugha vkrh fd nksuka i{kdkj ,d gksdj lkFk&lkFk viuk oSokfgd thou O;rhr dj ldsa blfy, nksuksa i{k us ;g vfUre o QkbZuy QSlyk dj fy;k fd nksuaksa gh i{kdkjku~ ijLij lgefr ls fookg&foPNsn fd fMdzh ikfjokfjd U;k;ky; ls izkIr dj ysosa] rkfd nksuksas gh i{kdkjku~ vius&vius rjhds ls bPNk ls viuk thou Lora= :i ls O;rhr dj ldsa] blds fy, ;g le>kSrk i= fy[kk tk jgk gsA 7- ;g fd nksuksa i{kdkjku~ ds e/; L=h/ku ,oa ysu&nsu dk fuiVkjk gks pqdk gS] vFkkZr~ izFke i{k dk dksbZ Hkh L=h/ku cdk;k ugh gSA 8- ;g fd f}rh; i{k] izFke i{k dks mlds vkthou Hkj.k&iks"k.k isVs ,deq'r Hkj.k iks"k.k dh jkf'k 7]50]000@& v{kjs lkr yk[k ipkl gtkj :i;s vnk djsxkA ftlds fy;s izFke i{k lger gSA 9- ;g fd iq=h oafa’kdk izkjEHk ls gh vius firk dh vfHkj{kk esa jgdj v/;;u dj jgh gS rFkk og vius firk ds ykM&nqykj ls izlUu gS rFkk firk dh vfHkj{kk esa gh gSA blds fy, izFke i{k Hkh lger gS rFkk iq=h dh dLVMh firk f}rh; i{k ds ikl gh j[kus esa lger gSA iq=h viuh ekrk ls feyus ds fy;s Lora= gSA 10- ;g fd izFke i{k bl ckr ds fy;s opuc) gS fd og iq=h oaf’kdk dks dLVMh esa j[kus ds fy, dksbZ vko';d dk;Zokgh ugha djsxhA 11- ;g fd nksuksa i{k yfEcr vnkyrh izdj.kksa dks foMªk dj ysaxs ,oa ijLij lgefr ls fookg&foPNsn dh fMdzh izkIr dj ysaxsA 12- ;g fd Hkj.k&iksa"k.k dh ,deq'r jkf'k dh vnk;xh f}rh; i{k izFke i{k dks rhu fd'rksa esa vnk djsxkA 13- ;g fd mDr jkf'k dh Mh-Mh- izFke i{k fookg foPNsn dh fMdzh ikfjr gks tkus ds i'pkr~ gh izkIr djus dh dkuwu vf/kdkfj.kh gksxhA 14- ;g fd nksuksa i{k vius&vius oknksa@'krksa ij tks fd bl le>kSrk i= esa of.kZr gS] dk;e jgsaxsA 15- ;g fd mDr of.kZr jkf'k dh Mh-Mh- izFke fd'r :- 2]50]000@& v{kjs nks yk[k ipkl gtkj :i;s fnukad 10-12-2018 rd f}rh; i{k izFke i{k ds gd esa ekuuh; jktLFkku mPp U;k;y;] t;iqj esa izdj.k la- Mh-ch- flfoy felysfu;l vihy la- 861@2018 ';ke lqUnj cuke Jherh d`".kk oekZ ds vUrxZr tek djsxkA f}rh; fd'r :- 2]50]000@& v{kjs nks yk[k ipkl gtkj :i;s dk Mh-Mh- f}rh; i{k izFke i{k ds gd esa fnukad 20-12-2018 rd ,oa r`rh; fd'r : 2]50]000@& v{kjs nks yk[k ipkl gtkj :i;s dk Mh-Mh- f}rh; i{k izFke i{k ds gd esa fnukad 10-01-2019 rd ekuuh; jktLFkku mPp U;k;ky; t;iqj esa mDr izdj.k ds vUrxZr tek djk nsxkA ;g fd dksbZ Hkh i{kdkj mijksDr 'krksZ dk mYya?ku djsxk rks og jkt iapk;r lekt esa nks"kh dgyk;sxk rFkk ihfMr i{k dks vnkyrh dk;Zokgh djus dk vf/kdkj gksxkA** The compromise has been signed by both the parties, their respective counsels as also the learned Mediator on 27.11.2018. In the application, the prayer is made by both the parties for converting the petition filed by the appellant-husband under Section 13 (1)(A)(B) of the Act into 13(B) of the Act and to pass a decree of divorce by mutual consent keeping in view the fact that their marriage has reached the stage of irretrievable broken down and period of six months for passing a decree of divorce be exempt on the ground of settlement arrived at between the parties. Both the parties submitted that even a petition under Section 13 of the Act, on joint request of the parties, can be converted into one under Section 13-B of the Act for grant of decree of divorce by mutual consent. In support of this submission, learned counsel relied on the judgments of the Supreme Court in Veena Vs. State Govt. of NCT, Delhi & Anr., (2011) 14 SCC 614 , Devinder Singh Narula Vs. Meenakshi Nangia – (2012) 8 SCC 580 , and Amardeep Singh Vs. Harveen Kaur – (2017) 8 SCC 746 . In Amardeep Singh, supra, the Supreme Court laid down that since the cooling off period mentioned in Section 13-B(2) is not mandatory but directory, it will be open to the court to exercise its discretion in the facts and circumstances of each case where there is no possibility of parties resuming cohabitation and there are chances of alternative rehabilitation. It is contended that three demand drafts (bearing no. 846377 dated 10.12.2018 amounting to Rs. 2,50,000/-; another demand drat bearing no. 254964 dated 17.12.2018 amounting to Rs. 2,50,000/- and demand draft bearing no. 599223 dated 15.12.2018 amounting to Rs. 1,50,000/-), as against two installments as mentioned in condition no. 15 quoted above, have been placed on record of the appeal, which have been handed over to the respondent, who is present in the Court. The respondentwife undertakes to withdraw Case No. 315/2016 pending before the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate No. 19, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur after receiving remaining amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- in the month of January, 2019. The appellant undertakes to deposit demand draft of remaining amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- latest by 10.01.2019. In view of the compromise arrived at between the parties, we are persuaded to allow Application No. 96319/2018 as also the appeal, which are accordingly allowed. Order dated 15.11.2017 passed by the Family Court is set side. 2,50,000/- in the month of January, 2019. The appellant undertakes to deposit demand draft of remaining amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- latest by 10.01.2019. In view of the compromise arrived at between the parties, we are persuaded to allow Application No. 96319/2018 as also the appeal, which are accordingly allowed. Order dated 15.11.2017 passed by the Family Court is set side. The marriage between appellant-husband and respondent-wife is dissolved by mutual consent with immediate effect in terms of the conditions of compromise quoted above. Decree of divorce be prepared accordingly. The petition filed by the appellant-husband before the Family Court seeking divorce be treated as disposed of in view of this judgment.