Allowed

Mehul Kantilal Bhatt v. Dimple Mehul Bhatt

Bombay HC11 Apr 2014FCA/23/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Two family court appeals preferred by the husband against decrees granted to the wife were disposed of. The High Court allowed the conversion of the husband's petition into a divorce by mutual consent under the Special Marriage Act based on filed consent terms.

What did the court decide?

Impugned judgments and decrees quashed; petitions restored; marriage dissolved by divorce by mutual consent under section 28 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954; decree in terms of consent terms passed.

Mehul Kantilal Bhatt Vs Dimple Mehul Bhatt — Matrimonial and Divorce | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

k 1 fca 22.10 and 23.10.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

FAMILY COURT APPEAL NO.22 OF 2010 WITH FAMILY COURT APPEAL NO.23 OF 2010

Mehul Kantilal Bhatt

... Appellant.

V/s.

Dimple Mehul Bhatt ... Respondent.

¶8

Mr. R.S. Upadhyay for the Appellant. Ms. Renu Shukla i/b Mr. A.M. Vernekar for the Respondent.

¶9

CORAM: A.S. OKA & A.A. SAYED, JJ. DATED : APRIL 11, 2014.

¶10

P.C. :

¶11

1 These two Family Court Appeals have been preferred by the Appellant husband. The Respondent wife filed a Petition under section 7 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 seeking reliefs in respect of a residential premises. The Appellant husband filed a Petition in the Family Court for dissolution of marriage. By the impugned judgment and decree, the Petition filed by Respondent wife was allowed and the Petition filed by the Appellant husband was dismissed.

¶12

2 On 24^th March, 2014, the Appellant and Respondent have filed Consent Terms in Family Court Appeal no.23 of 2010. Order dated 24^th

¶13

1/3

¶14

k 1 fca 22.10 and 23.10.doc

¶15

March, 2014 records that the parties were personally present on that day and the parties agreed and accepted correctness of the contents of the Consent Terms. However, the Appeals were kept pending for the purposes of compliance with clauses 5 and 7 of the Consent Terms. Today it is an admitted position that both the clauses have been complied with and therefore, the Consent Terms can be acted upon.

¶16

3 Accordingly we dispose of the Appeals by passing following order:

¶17

a) The impugned judgments and decrees are quashed and set aside and Petition nos. A-2244 of 2007 and B-102 of 2007 are restored to file of the Family Court;

¶18

b) By consent we permit the parties to convert Petition nos.A-2244 of 2007 into a Petition for divorce by mutual consent under section 28 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954. The conversion shall relate back to the date of institution of the said Petition;

¶19

c) The parties have settled their all subsisting disputes as is clear from the Consent Terms dated 24^th January 2014. We find that there is no collusion between the parties. After realizing that the marriage cannot be saved, they have agreed to dissolve the marriage by a decree of divorce by mutual consent under section 28 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954;

¶20

2/3

¶21

k 1 fca 22.10 and 23.10.doc

¶22

d) Hence, the marriage solemnized between the Appellant and Respondent stands dissolved by a decree of divorce under section 28 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954;

¶23

e) The statements made in the Consent Terms are accepted. f) There will be a decree in terms of the Consent Terms in both the Appeals.

¶24

g) There will be no order as to costs.

¶25

(A.A. SAYED, J.) (A.S. OKA , J. )

¶26

katkam

¶27

3/3

Mehul Kantilal Bhatt v. Dimple Mehul Bhatt

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mehul Kantilal Bhatt v. Dimple Mehul Bhatt

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mrs. Jyoti Sangram Chavan Vs Hindustan Petroleum Corporatin Ltd.

Nagnath Uddhav Kadam Vs Union of India and Ors.

M/S. Sai Properties through Its Partner Shri. Pradeep Mangharam Lulla Vs Shri. Deepak Balkrishna Vahikar and Anr.

Villagers of Pahine , Kojuli and Bhilmal Gaon Vs the Collector , Nashik and Ors.

Shrikant Madhav Karve Vs the Secretary (Parivahan), Home Ministry, Govt of Maharashtra and Ors.

Mehul Kantilal Bhatt Vs Dimple Mehul Bhatt