Dismissed

Mubarak Ali v. Saba Khatoon

Jharkhand HC19 Jan 2023FA/42/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

On appeal from dismissal of a divorce petition under the Special Marriage Act, the Court disposed of the matter based on an amicable settlement between the parties for separation and alimony payment of Rs. 10 lakh, including withdrawal of pending criminal and civil cases. The first appeal and an application for condonation of delay were disposed of without a decree on the substantive matter.

What did the court decide?

The first appeal and application for condonation of delay (I.A. No. 5603/2020) are disposed of. The settlement agreement is made part of the decree. Respondent must dispose/withdraw pending criminal a

Mubarak Ali Vs Saba Khatoon — Maintenance and Alimony | Jharkhand HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI First Appeal No. 42 of 2020

¶2

CORAM: Hon’ble The Acting Chief Justice Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Roshan

¶3

--For the Appellant: Mr. Jitendra Nath Upadhyay, Advocate For the Respondent: Mr. Vibhor Mayank, Advocate

¶4

¶5

15 / 19.01.2023 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶6

Appellant is aggrieved by the judgment dated 14.12.2017 and decree dated 05.01.2018 passed in Matrimonial Suit No. 38/2011 by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Additional Family Court, East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur, whereby the petition seeking divorce under section 27(d) of the Special Marriage Act, has been dismissed.

¶7

During pendency of this appeal, parties have arrived at an amicable settlement in course of mediation at JHALSA. As per the terms of settlement jointly signed by the parties enclosed to the report of learned Mediator, JHALSA bearing letter no. 1473 dated 02.06.2022, parties have agreed to separate on mutual terms and conditions and on payment of alimony of Rs. 10.00 lakhs in instalment as per the schedule incorporated in the settlement. Terms of settlement and payment of first instalment of Rs. 2.50 lakh was taken note of in the order dated 20.06.2022. Thereafter, an affidavit was filed by the appellant on 09.12.2022, taken note of in the order dated 19.12.2022, that total amount of permanent alimony of Rs. 10.00 lakh has been paid in six instalments.

¶8

Parties were called to appear on 21.12.2022 as the two cases instituted by the wife had not been withdrawn till that date. In the presence of the parties, this court was informed that Respondent would take steps for disposal of the pending criminal case instituted under section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and Maintenance Case pending before the competent court at East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur, as per the terms of settlement.

¶9

Today when the matter has been taken up, learned counsel for the parties informed that an application has been filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1^st Class, Jamshedpur for withdrawal of Complaint Case No. 406/2011 and also before the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Jamshedpur in Misc. Case No. 18/2011 on 16.01.2023. It is submitted that

¶10

¶11

appeal may be disposed of as the parties are in the process of resolving the two pending cases in terms of settlement.

¶12

We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and taken note of the developments that have taken place during pendency of this appeal. Since parties have settled their dispute and payment of alimony of Rs. 10.00 lakh has also been made and further steps have been taken by the Respondent for withdrawal of two pending cases which are likely to reach its logical conclusion, there is no lis to be decided in the present appeal. Accordingly, the present appeal is disposed of in terms of the settlement. Decree accordingly. Let the settlement form part of the decree. Respondent should comply with the part of settlement relating to disposal / withdrawal of two pending cases as above. Appellant shall also cooperate.

¶13

Since the parties have arrived at an amicable settlement, I.A. No. 5603/2020 seeking condonation of delay of 794 days is disposed of.

¶14

(Aparesh Kumar Singh, A.C.J)

¶15

(Deepak Roshan, J)

¶16

Ranjeet/

Mubarak Ali v. Saba Khatoon

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mubarak Ali v. Saba Khatoon

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ms Jharkhand Bijili Vitran Nigam Limited Represented through Its Finance Controller Sri Umesh Kumar Vs Principal Commissioner of Income Tax

Deepsons Auto Centre through Its Proprietor Sandeep Agarwal Vs the Union of India

Tata Engineering and Locomotive Company Ltd. through Rajesh Kumar Das Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary

Sanjay Kumar Vs Poonam Priya

Sanjay Kumar Vs Poonam Priya

Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited through the Territory Manager Sanjeev Gupta Vs Ms B K B Transport Private Ltd.