Dismissed

Nisha v. Maha Nand

Punjab & Haryana HC6 Dec 2010CR/7924/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed a petition invoking supervisory jurisdiction to recall a divorce decree passed under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act. The Court held that the divorce proceedings were properly conducted, no fraud was established regarding the living-in-separate-aboutment, and the child's confinement did not vitiate the decree.

What did the court decide?

Application for recalling the divorce decree under Section 151 CPC was dismissed.

Nisha Vs Maha Nand — Matrimonial and Divorce | Punjab & Haryana HC (2010)

¶1

C.R. No. 7924 of 2010

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

C.R. No. 7924 of 2010

¶5

Date of Decision: 06.12.2010

Nisha

.... Petitioner

Versus

Maha Nand and others

... Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH

¶12

Present : Mr. Sandeep K. Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner

¶13

Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes

¶14

To be referred to the Reporters or not? Yes

¶15

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes

¶16

ALOK SINGH, J. (ORAL)

¶17

Petitioner-wife has invoked supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the order dated 24.8.2010 passed by Addl. District Judge, Rohtak thereby rejecting the application moved by the wife for recalling the divorce decree dated 10.10.2006.

¶18

The brief facts inter alia are that marriage between the parties was solemnized on 15.1.2001 as per hindu rites and ceremonies. Both the parties started living together and child namely Nancy was born out of this wedlock on 1.10.2002. Both the parties have filed joint petition under Section 13(B) of Hindu Marriage Act before the Court below on 23.3.2006. Both the parties have signed the petition under Section 13-B of the Act. After expiry of statuary period of 6 months statements on oath of both the parties were

¶19

C.R. No. 7924 of 2010

¶20

¶21

recorded by the Court below on 25.5.2006. Both the parties have stated on oath before the Court below that from 5.1.2005 parties are residing separately and despite of best efforts for re-conciliation made by family members, relatives and the parties, re-conciliation is not possible, hence, they have amicably agreed for divorce by mutual consent. Ultimately divorce decree was passed by the Court below on 10.10.2006. Petitioner-wife, thereafter, moved an application under Section 151 CPC for recalling the judgment dated 18.10.2006 on the ground that wrong averments were made in the petition under Section 13-B of the Act and wrong statements were given before the Court below to the effect that parties are living separately, although parties were living together under one roof.

¶22

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

¶23

Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of learned Single Judge of Orissa High Court in the case of Smt. Puspalata Rout vs. Damodar Rout, C.R. No. 469 of 1984 decided on 15.5.1986 and argued that a mutual decree for divorce under Section 13-B of the Act can be recalled under Section 151 CPC. There is no doubt about the legal preposition that mutual decree for dissolution of marriage passed under Section 13-B of the Act can be recalled while invoking Section 151 CPC on proving that fraud was played while getting the decree for dissolution of marriage.

¶24

I am in full agreement with learned Single Judge of Orissa High Court that if petition under Section 13-B of the Act was itself not maintainable then decree for dissolution of marriage on a petition which itself was not maintainable can be recalled under Section 151

¶25

C.R. No. 7924 of 2010

¶26

¶27

CPC.

¶28

Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act reads as under:- “ 13B. Divorce by mutual consent. - (1) Subject to the provisions of this Act a petition for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce may be presented to the district court by both the parties to a marriage together, whether such marriage was solemnized before or after the commencement of the Marriage Laws (Amendment) Act 1976 (68 of 1976), on the ground that they have been living separately for a period of one year or more, that they have not been able to live together and that they have mutually agreed that the marriage should be dissolved.

¶29

(2) On the motion of both the parties made not earlier than six months after the date of the presentation of the petition referred to in sub-section (1) and not later than eighteen months after the said date, if the petition is not withdrawn in the meantime, the court shall, on being satisfied, after hearing the parties and after making such inquiry as it thinks fit, that a marriage has been solemnized and that the averments in the petition are true, pass a decree of divorce declaring the marriage to be dissolved with effect from the date of decree.”

¶30

To maintain the petition under Section 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act, three ingredients must be pleaded and proved which are as under:-

¶31

C.R. No. 7924 of 2010

¶32

¶33

(a) Parties to the divorce petition have been living separately from one year or more.

¶34

(b) They have not been able to live together.

¶35

¶36

If any of the ingredients of Section 13-B is missing then Court would be within its jurisdiction in dismissing the petition under Section 13-B of the Act. In the present case in paragraphs No. 4 and 6 of the petition under Section 13-B of the Act, following averments were made:-

¶37

4. That after few months of the marriage, the relations between the petitioners started deteriorating and consequently became strained, rough and tough. During their stay together as husband and wife, they could not adjust with each other mentally and physically despite of their keen interest and best efforts. Even the efforts of the respectable and brotherhood of both the sides to reconcile the parties proved futile but the petitioners could not pull on and in the end when despite keen desire and best efforts for the reconciliation of dispute, it was found that the petitioners could not live together as husband and wife and that it is very difficult to save this marriage. That both the petitioners after the marriage resides together in their matrimonial house from 15.1.2001 to 5.1.2005 and after that they started residing separately.

¶38

6. That the petitioners lived together only up to

¶39

C.R. No. 7924 of 2010

¶40

¶41

5.1.2005 and since 5.1.2005 they are living/residing separately and could not adjust with each other mentally and physically despite of their keen interest and best efforts and could not pull on and the parties could not reconcile during this period of separation and they have not resumed cohabitation since the date of their separation. As such all the efforts of reconciliation from both the sides of the petitioners have failed and now the marriage is irretrievably broken down and there is no possibility and probability of their living together as husband and wife is in sight and they have therefore mutually agreed that the marriage between them should be dissolved. Therefore, now both the parties had agreed to get the legal divorce by mutual consent from the Hon'ble Court.

¶42

From the perusal of the contents of paragraphs No. 4 and 6 of the petition under Section 13-B of the Act, I am satisfied that all the three ingredients were pleaded. Not only this in a statement on oath made by both the parties before the Court below contentions of paragraphs No. 4 and 6 of the petition were repeated. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am fully satisfied that requirement of Section 13-B of the Act was duly pleaded and proved, hence, Court was well within its jurisdiction while granting the decree for dissolution of marriage under Section 13-B of the Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner-wife vehemently argued that child namely Nancy was in illegal confinement of husband, hence, under the threat of husband,

¶43

C.R. No. 7924 of 2010

¶44

¶45

wife has signed divorce petition and has made wrong statement on oath before the Court below, hence, decree obtained is out come of fraud and coercion, hence, must be set aside. Admittedly, petitioner has singed the divorce petition; Petitioner did not make any complaint during the pendency of the divorce petition which was pending for almost 8 months. Moreover, petitioner did not make any complaint to the Court while appearing in a witness box about the illegal confinement of the minor child, hence, I am not inclined to accept contentions raised by learned counsel for the petitioner. I do not find any reason or justification to disturb the view taken by the Court below.

¶46

Dismissed.

¶47

(ALOK SINGH) JUDGE

¶48

06.12.2010 reena

Nisha v. Maha Nand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nisha v. Maha Nand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Municipal Council, Kotkapura Vs Parvina Vimal and Others

Lal Chand and Anr. Vs Sukhbir Singh and Co. and Ors.

Kulwant Singh Vs Dera Mai Sahib

Ram Murti Sharma Vs Prem Kumar and Ors.

Santosh & Ors. Vs Krishan & Ors.

Sukhwinder Singh Vs Harbhajan Kaur