Shobha Srivastva vs T.D.Srivastva

Swatanter Kumar, J.

Notice. Learned counsel appearing for the nonapplicant accepts notice. He submits that he has no objection if the amendment is allowed and is permitted to relate back to the date of the filing of the original petition.

For the reasons aforestated and the fact that the matter has already been settled amicably between the parties, I consider it to be in the interest of justice that this application is allowed and amendment is permitted to relate back to the date of the institution of the original petition for divorce. This application is accordingly disposed of. The amendment petition under Section 13(B) of the Hindu Marriage Act is taken on record.

FAO No. 63 of 1997.

Statements of the parties were recorded on 24.2.1998 specifying the terms of compromise including the grant of decree of divorce by mutual consent.

Both the parties were present in Court today. They reiterated their settlement and wish to dissolve the marriage by a decree of divorce granted on mutual consent. They have stated that they never cohabited as husband and wife since 1993. They have also seriously considered the matter and have found that their marriage cannot survive and it has irretrievably broken down. This appeal is also pending before this Court since April, 1997 and all efforts made to reconcile their dispute have brought no results. The learned counsel appearing for parties were relying upon various judgments of this court and other High Courts prayed that the period of six months provided under the provisions of Section 13(B) of the Hindu Marriage Act could be condoned in the facts and circumstances of the case. Reference was made to Ashok Hurra v. Rupa Bipin Zaveri, 1997(1) H.L.R. 621 : 1997(2) RCR(Civil) 330; Krishna Kumari v. Ashwani Kumar, 1997(1) H.L.R. 241 : 1997(1) RCR(Civil) 520; Sukesh Bhatia v. Anita Bhatia, 1995(2) H.L.R. 457; Mukhtiar Singh v. Gurpinder Kaur, 1995(2) All India Hindu Law Report 652 : 1995(3) RRR 15, and Niranjan Kumar v. Veena Rani All India, (Sic) H.L.R. 123. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not propose to discuss the validity of this argument because this question really does not even arise for consideration of the Court. Once the amendment is allowed and permitted to relate back to the date of filing of the original petition, the period much in excess of the six months would have expired by today. This appeal was filed on 19.4.1997. The parties were directed to be present in the Court vide order dated 1.5.1997 of the Division Bench. This appeal was admitted vide order dated 25.11.1997. The parties have been continuously expressing their desire not to resettle their matrimonial home and always wish to part the company with each other. The purpose of Legislation under these provisions is that party should have six months period to reconsider their decision and gaze the possibility of their reuniting and settling their matrimonial home. That object is sufficiently met in this case as the period of more than six months has expired when the reconciliation attempts even by the Court failed to reunite the parties. The divorce petition was instituted on 5.10.1993 and therefore it is fit case where the parties could be permitted to dissolve their marriage by a decree of divorce on mutual consent.

In view of the statements already recorded and reiterated in Court today and the fact that the payment of Rs. 1.50 lacs by way of bank draft No. 702281 dated 28.2.1998 of Oriental Bank of Commerce, Sector 17B, Chandigarh has been made by the wife to the husband, I am satisfied that this marriage cannot survive and is irretrievably broken down as the parties have mutually agreed to dissolve their marriage which seems to be just, fair and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. The marriage between the parties is dissolved by a decree of divorce on mutual consent on the terms stated in the statement recorded on 24.2.1998 under Section 13(B) of the Hindu Marriage Act. The said statements shall form a part of the decree.