High CourtsDivision Bench

Gurdhian Singh vs Gurmeet Kaur

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 27 March 1996 · Citation: (1996) 114 PLR 648 : (1997) 2 RCR(Civil) 296

HON’BLE JUDGES
M.L. Singhal, J · H.S. Brar, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — Section 13B
CASE NUMBER
First Appeal from Order No''s. 103-M of 1995 and C.M. 3335, 3336 and 3337-CII of 1996
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

8 paragraphs · 755 words

M.L. Singhal, J.—Joint statement of the parties has been recorded. In view of the joint statement of the parties which is to the effect that they have reached a point of no return and they have thought it better to dissolve their marriage with their mutual consent instead of dragging it relentlessly and also that the wife has received a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- by way of permanent maintenance and alimony and in lieu of dowry which had been given to the husband by the parents of the wife, Husband owes nothing to the wife hereafter nor wife owes anything to the husband, the marriage of Gurdhian Singh and Gurmeet Kaur is dissolved by decree of divorce with mutual consent u/s 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act. Appeal has become infructuous and is accordingly disposed of.

Orders in C.M. 3335, 3336, 3337-CII of 1995.

Gurdhian Singh (husband) instituted petition u/s 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act for the grant of decree of divorce and for annulment of marriage u/s 12(1) and 5(ii) C of the Hindu Marriage Act against his wife Gurmeet Kaur on September 12, 1994. Husband based his claim for dissolution of marriage with his wife on the ground that the wife was suffering from intermittent fits (mental dis-order). She had attacks of mental illness twice or thrice a day. When she suffered attack of mental illness, she remained un-conscious for hours together in the wake of that attack. His further claim is that when the marriage was settled, it was not disclosed to him by the wife''s side that she was suffering from mental dis-order. If the fact of mental dis-order had been disclosed to him, he would not have entered marriage with her. She was suffering from epilepsy. Even before the marriage and at the time of marriage also she was suffering from epilepsy. His consent to this marriage was obtained by practicing fraud upon him.

2.

Wife contested the claim of the husband urging that she never suffered from any mental disorder or (epilepsy). She further urged that husband was desirous of getting rid of her as she was not able to fulfil his demand for dowry viz Hero Honda Motor Cycle and colour T.V. in lieu of Bajaj Scooter and black and white T.V. respectively. Finding that demand for dowry was not being fulfilled, he started mal-treating and beating her. Eventually, she was turned out of the matrimonial home with wearing apparel only. Effort made by her for her rehabilitation into the matrimonial home did not bear any fruit. Addl. District Judge, Patiala dismissed this petition with costs vide order dated 12.5.1995. Husband did not relent and knocked the door of this Court against this decision.

3.

During the course of motion hearing, effort was made to bring about reconciliation between the parties so that they became reunited into the matrimonial home. Reconciliation/reunion could not be brought about between them and they thought it better to have divorce by way of mutual consent and to carve out future afresh for them.

4.

They draw up the modalities of how they could put an end to their marriage and carve out future afresh for them and with this end in view they have put in compromise Exhibit C-l before this Court.

5.

In pursuance to the compromise Exhibit C-1 they have put in joint petition for divorce with mutual consent u/s 13B(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act for the dissolution of their marriage by decree of divorce. At the same time, they have moved an application u/s 13B(2) with the request that they be permitted to dissolve their marriage forthwith and their petition u/s 13(B)(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act be not adjourned to a period of six months.

6.

Keeping in view that the husband and wife have reached a point of no return as if there had been any ray of hope of their reconciliation into the matrimonial home, they would not have allowed the matter to drift to a period of one and a half year from September 1994 to March 1996. So that there is no wastage of time of either side in negotiating their marriage elsewhere. The marriage of the parties be dissolved with mutual consent u/s 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act right now. Joint statement of both husband and wife has been separately recorded dissolving their marriage with their mutual consent u/s 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act. Their marriage is dissolved with their mutual consent u/s 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act.