Dismissed

Rajesh Kumar Jalan v. Smt Shital Devi Jalan

Jharkhand HC17 Apr 2017FA/216/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Jharkhand dismissed an appeal against the dismissal of a divorce by mutual consent suit when the wife withdrew her consent after receiving settlement money. The court held that the lower court correctly dismissed the suit as mutual consent was no longer present.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed in limine. The appellant is granted liberty to approach the appropriate forum for relief under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act.

Rajesh Kumar Jalan Vs Smt Shital Devi Jalan — Matrimonial and Divorce | Jharkhand HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

F.A. (D.B.) No. 216 of 2016

¶3

------Rajesh Kumar Jalan .… Appellant -VersusSmt. Shital Devi Jalan ..... Respondent ------- CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.C.MISHRA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Dr. S.N.PATHAK ------For the Appellant : : M/s. S.K.Laik For the Respondent : :

¶4

I.A No. 8256 of 2016

¶5

5/ 17.04.2017. The present interlocutory application has been filed for condonation of delay of 177 days in filing this appeal.

¶6

In view of the statements made in the interlocutory application, the delay

¶7

in filing the appeal is hereby condoned.

¶8

Accordingly, the aforesaid interlocutory application stands allowed.

¶9

F.A. No. 216 of 2016

¶10

This appeal has been filed by the appellant-husband against the order dated 26.4.2016 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Dhanbad, in T.M.S No. 501 of 2015, whereby, the suit filed by both the parties under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, has been dismissed, as the wife had withdrawn her consent.

¶11

Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the impugned order passed by the Court below is absolutely illegal, inasmuch as, Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act speaks about the withdrawal of the petition itself, by both the parties and accordingly, on withdrawal of only the consent by the petitioner No.2-wife, the suit could not have been dismissed.

¶12

It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that after filing the suit in the Court below, the appellant had given to his wife Rs.16,50,000/- as one time settlement between the parties, which she had acknowledged in the Court in her statement recorded on oath on 5.4.2016. It is submitted that after receiving the said amount, the wife has unilaterally withdrawn the consent and in that view of the matter, the Court below ought to have passed an order directing the wife to refund the money to the appellant before dismissing the suit. It is further submitted by the learned counsel that the respondent wife had again filed a petition for review on 3.5.2016, but she did not press the same and the said review petition was also dismissed as not pressed by order dated 24.11.2016. Learned counsel accordingly, submitted that it is a fit case in which the impugned order dated 26.4.2016 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Dhanbad, in T.M.S No. 501 of 2015, be set aside and the matter be remanded back to the Court below.

¶13

-2-

¶14

Having heard learned counsel for the appellant in the admission stage itself, we do not see any illegality in the impugned order dated 26.4.2016, so as to entertain the appeal. The impugned order clearly shows that the respondent wife, who was petitioner No.2 in the Court below, had withdrawn her consent for divorce by mutual consent and accordingly, the suit filed under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act was dismissed. In such a situation, the Court below had no other option but to dismiss the suit in view of the fact that Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act can be entertained only upon mutual consent by both the petitioners. One of the petitioners having withdrawn the consent, the Court below was bound to dismiss the suit.

¶15

We do not find any illegality in the impugned order passed by the Court below. There is no merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed in limine .

¶16

However, the appellant is given the liberty to move the appropriate Court with an appropriate application under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, or to move the appropriate forum for appropriate relief.

¶17

D.S./B.S.

Rajesh Kumar Jalan v. Smt Shital Devi Jalan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajesh Kumar Jalan v. Smt Shital Devi Jalan

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

The Union Of India Through The General Manager East Central Railway And Ors. Vs Smt Anita Kumari Sinha

Ms Jardine Henderson Limited through Its Authorised Signatory Rakesh Macwan Vs Binod Kumar Mishra and Ors.

Nav Kumar Pandey Vs State of Jharkhand

Somnath Das Vs the State of Jharkhand and Ors.

Nitish Kumar Sinha and Anr. Vs Union of India through Ministry of Railway and Ors.

Manoj Kumar Bhagat Vs Kamal Manjari