Dr. Senthil Raj Meenrajan vs Vishali Vanniarajan

T. Mathivanan, J.—The fair and decretal Order, dated 24.8.2011 and made in the Interlocutory Application in I.A. No. 15 of 2011 in H.M.O.P. No. 96 of 2010 are under challenge in this Memorandum of Civil Revision.

The Revision Petitioner herein is the Petitioner in the Matrimonial proceedings in H.M.O.P. No. 96 of 2010, whereas the Respondent is the Respondent therein.

The Revision Petitioner herein has filed a Petition in H.M.O.P. No.96 of 2010 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Virudhunagar, as against the Respondent herein under Section 13(1)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking the relief of Divorce on the ground of cruelty.

During the pendency of that Petition, the Respondent herein has filed a Petition in I.A. No. 15 of 2011 under Order 14, Rule 2, read with Section 151, C.P.C., to dismiss the Petition in H.M.O.P. No. 96 of 2010 as the learned Subordinate Judge has no Territorial jurisdiction to entertain the Petition.

That Petition was resisted by the Revision Petitioner by filing his Counter Affidavit. However, the learned Trial Judge on hearing both sides and on appreciation of the documentary evidences marked on behalf of both sides has proceeded to allow that Petition with a finding that the Subordinate Court, Virudhunagar did not have territorial jurisdiction to entertain the Petition.

Having been aggrieved by the impugned Order, dated 24.8.2011, present Revision Petition is filed by the Petitioner.

When the Petition is taken up for hearing today, i.e., on 4.12.2015 both the learned Counsels, viz., Mr. S. Subbaiah, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner as well as Mr. K. Sekar learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent have jointly submitted that both the parties to the Revision Petition had settled their Matrimonial dispute amicably at the intervention of their well-wishers and the elderly people of their family members and hence, they prepared to file a Memorandum of Compromise duly signed by both the parties.

On interrogation, both the Petitioner as well as the Respondent, who were present in the Court, have categorically admitted that they had settled their matrimonial dispute amicably and therefore, they had given their consent to pass a Decree of Divorce as prayed for by the Petitioner by converting the main Petition in H.M.O.P. No.96 of 2010, which is filed by the Revision Petitioner under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1953, into one under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act.

Since the parties to the Revision Petition have come forward to settle their dispute amicably for the welfare of their future as well as for the future of their children, this Court does not want to go into the facts of the case in detail which exerted the Petitioner to approach this Court for filing a Petition seeking the Decree of Divorce on the ground of cruelty.

The parties to the Revision Petition have admitted the solemnization of their marriage on 3.6.2001 at Virudhunagar Chilli Merchants'' Association, Kalyanamandapam at Virudhunagar, according to Hindu rites and customs of Hindu Nadar Community to which both the parties belong.

The Revision Petitioner and the Respondent due to certain circumstances were unable to reconcile with each other and on account of the same, they were physically separated on and from 10.9.2010, when they were residing at United Arab Emirates and there is no possibility of any reunion as the marriage was irretrievably broken down in spite of various conciliation efforts.

Both the Petitioner and the Respondent have decided amongst themselves out of their own willingness and full consciousness to have dissolved their Marriage solemnised on 3.6.2001 by Mutual Consent as they were living separately for more than three years.

Both the parties have submitted that the Petition filed by the Revision Petitioner in H.M.O.P. No.96 of 2010 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Virudhunagar be converted into one under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act for Divorce by Mutual Consent.

Their two sons by name Shvetam Raj, now aged about 11� years, and Viduram Raj, now aged about 10 years, will be in the permanent custody of the Respondent being the mother and the Respondent shall have the visitation rights during the time of vacation and other holidays with mutual consent.

The Respondent is residing at Abudhabi in UAE along with her children as they are pursuing their education there.

They both have agreed that the adopted daughter by name, Shivani Panchami, now aged about 8� years will be under the custody of the Petitioner in Dubai with all comforts including education and the Respondent shall have the visitation rights during the period of vacation and other holidays with mutual consent.

The Revision Petitioner undertakes to pay the Maintenance of Dhs.3600 to the Respondent for nurturing the children subject to the condition that she shall remain within UAE. In the event of the Respondent leaving the United Arab Emirates for any other country, the liability of the Petitioner to pay the Maintenance to the Respondent shall stand ceased and there would not be any liability on the part of the Petitioner to make any more payment to the Respondent on any ground.

The Petitioner shall return 24Ct. Gold purchased during their marriage, now the market value of the same is 10000 U.S. Dollars, and also the Petitioner shall pay the benefits of the Insurance Policy under Metlife 401 K Plan (Flexible Bonus Annuity (Mliusa 228) bearing Account No. SF 3003226SF, to the Respondent and his two sons Shvetam Raj and Viduram Raj.

The Petitioner shall transfer the Florida Prepaid College Plans in respect of both the children Shevatam Raj and Viduram Raj in the name of the Respondent.

The Petitioner undertakes to bear the Educational expenditure and School fees for Shivani Panchami and one of his sons and the Respondent will bear the Educational expenditure and School fees for the other son, viz., Viduram Raj, till they attain majority.

The Mutual Fund under Policy No.8322291 in Zurich Vista shall be continued for all the children, viz., Shivani Panchami, Shvetam Raj and Viduram Raj with the Respondent as the beneficiary. In the event of failure to pay the Maintenance by the Petitioner, the said Policy shall be transferred to the Respondent and the liability of the Petitioner to pay the Maintenance shall stand ceased and there would not be any liability on the part of the Petitioner to make any more payment to the Respondent on any ground.

The Respondent shall return to her mother-in-law, namely, the mother of the Petitioner all the gold and other jewellery articles gifted by her to the Respondent.

It is always open, to all the three children either jointly or severally to decide their future after their attainment of majority, i.e., after the completion of 18 years as per the Indian Majority Act.

Both the Revision Petitioner as well as the Respondent have signed in all the official documents requiring then respective signatures, for the transfer of the benefits in their name as mentioned in the above clauses containing in the Memorandum of Compromise.

The Petitioner and the Respondent hereby declare that the mutual consent for the Decree of Divorce is out of then own volition, free will and accord, pleasure and without any coercion, undue influence, force and threat or any other such acts either by the Petitioner or by the Respondent.

The Revision Petitioner and the Respondent have no other claim against each other.

The Revision Petitioner and the Respondent hereby declare that on and from the date of signing of the Memorandum of Compromise, they have no mutual claim against each other and they will not have any other claim against each other.

Following the Order passed by this Court in C.R.P.PD. No. 1978 of 2012 & in M.P. No. 1 of 2012 & M.P. No. 1 of 2015, dated 29.10.2015, which is yet to be reported, the main Petition in H.M.O.P. No 96 of 2010 was ordered to be transferred to the file of this Court so as to convert the same as the Petition filed under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act for the purpose of granting the relief of consent Decree of Divorce.

Accordingly, the above Petition in H.M.O.P No. 96 of 2010 was transferred to the file of this Court from the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Virudhunagar and the same has been duly converted into one under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act and renumbered as M.P. No. 1 of 2015 on the file of this Court.

Since the Revision Petitioner as well as the Respondent have been living separately for the past three years, the statutory waiting period of six months as contemplated under sub-section (2) of Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act has been waived and the Petition in M.P. No.1 of 2015 is allowed and a Consent Decree of Divorce under Section 13-B of the Act is granted in favour of the parties to the Petition dissolving their marriage solemnised on 3.6.2001 as the same has been irretrievably broken down.

The Memorandum of Compromise filed by the parties to the Revision Petition is taken on record and the same shall form part of the Decree.

With the above observations, the Revision Petition is disposed of M.P. No. 1 of 2011 is closed and M.P. No.1 of 2015 is allowed. However, there will be no order as to Costs.