Allowed

Chanchal v. Sudhir Kumar

Punjab & Haryana HC16 Feb 2012FAO/2220/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana allowed an application to convert a cruelty petition under Section 13 to a mutual consent petition under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act. After mediators facilitated a compromise and parties recorded repeated statements confirming irreconcilable differences, the Court granted a decree of divorce by mutual consent.

What did the court decide?

Decree of divorce by mutual consent granted under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

Chanchal Vs Sudhir Kumar — Matrimonial and Divorce | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

F.A.O. No. 2220 of 2011 (O&M) 1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

F.A.O. No. 2220 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: 16.2.2012

Chanchal

..Appellant

Versus

Sudhir Kumar

..Respondent

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN

¶10

Present:Mr. Sudhir Aggarwal, Advocate for the appellant.

¶11

Mr.Rajesh Arora, Advocate for the respondent.

¶12

RAJIVE BHALLA,J.

¶13

CM No. 24490-CII of 2011

¶14

Prayer in this application is for converting the petition,

¶15

filed under section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act,1955 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) to a petition under section 13-B of the Act, for grant of divorce, by mutual consent.

¶16

Heard.

¶17

The applicant and the respondent, Smt. Chanchal and Sudhir Kumar, are present in the court, with their counsel, and pray that the application may be allowed and the petition originally filed under Section 13 of the Act may be converted to a petition under section 13-B of the Act.

¶18

We have considered the prayer and allow the

¶19

F.A.O. No. 2220 of 2011 (O&M) 2

¶20

application as prayed for.

¶21

The petition filed under section 13-B of the Act is taken

¶22

on record.

¶23

F.A.O. No.2220 of 2011

¶24

Smt. Chanchal and Sudhir Kumar were married on 12.12.1999 and were blessed with a son on 15.11.2000. Smt. Chanchal filed a petition, under section 13 of the Act for grant of divorce on the grounds of cruelty and desertion. Sudhir Kumar denied the allegations and opposed petition for divorce. The Family Court, Gurgaon, dismissed the petition on 3.12.2010. Smt. Chanchal filed an appeal. During pendency of the appeal, the matter was forwarded to the Mediation Center and on 2.6.2011, the Mediator succeeded in bringing about a compromise between parties in the following terms:

¶25

“1. The parties have decided to part ways by getting divorce from each other on the basis of mutual consent. It has been further agreed that the application shall be moved in the present FAO for conversion of the same from Section 13 to Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act. Both the parties shall cooperate with each other & file the petition at the earliest.

¶26

2. It has been further agreed that papers of LIC Policy No. 112748123 which is in the name of Chanchal Ahuja shall be handed over to her in the Hon'ble Court at the time of making first statement in divorce petition

¶27

F.A.O. No. 2220 of 2011 (O&M) 3

¶28

under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act. Till date, Sh. Sudhir Kumar had been paying premium of the said policy. But after handing over of the papers, Ms. Chanchal Ahuja shall be responsible for the payment of premium and she will be entitled to get interim as well as maturity benefits of the policy.

¶29

3. It has been further agreed that Honda Activa bearing Registration No. HR 26 AC 1932 which is in the name of Sudhir Kumar but in the possession of Ms. Chanchal Ahuja shall be got transferred in the name of Ms. Chanchal Ahuja by Sh. Sudhir Kumar before the finalization of the divorce petition.

¶30

4. It has been further agreed that Ms. Chanchal Ahuja shall not claim any maintenance past or future from Sh. Sudhir Kumar. Ms. Chanchal Ahuja will not claim any right in the moveable and immoveable property of Sh. Sudhir Kumar on her behalf and on behalf of her child.

¶31

5. It has been further agreed that Sh. Sudhir Kumar shall not claim custody of minor child Master Hiransh. Ms. Chanchal Ahuja shall be sole guardian of Master Hiransh and the custody of the child shall remain with the mother for all intent and purpose. Ms. Chanchal Ahuja shall be solely responsible for schooling and upbringing of the child Master Hiransh.

¶32

F.A.O. No. 2220 of 2011 (O&M) 4

¶33

Ms. Chanchal Ahuja shall be entitled to apply for the passport, ration card or any other document in respect of minor child, Hiransh.

¶34

6. It has been further agreed that father Sh. Sudhir Kumar shall have a right to visit child, Master Hiransh, on every working Friday of the week after the school hours for the duration of one hour. Sh. Sudhir Kumar, shall take the child from school gate and after one hour, he will leave the child at Mrs. Kusum Rajput's house, Masi of the child.

¶35

7. With the execution of the present compromise, entire dispute between the parties shall stand settled and all the parties shall be free to lead their life as per the own wishes.

¶36

8. This compromise has been reached between the parties without any pressure and both the parties have very happily agreed to abide by the terms and conditions of the agreement.”

¶37

As per terms and conditions of the compromise, both parties have filed a petition for grant of divorce by mutual consent praying that as they are unable to resolve their differences, their marriage may be dissolved by grant of a decree of divorce by mutual consent. Statements of the parties were recorded by the mediator on 2.6.2011 and by this court on 8.12.2011. Statements recorded on 8.12.2011 read as follows:

¶38

F.A.O. No. 2220 of 2011 (O&M) 5

¶39

“Statement of Smt. Chanchal wife of Shri Sudhir Kumar resident of H.No.254/21, Gali No.4, Madanpuri, Gurgaon, District Gurgaon on SA

¶40

The appellant-Chanchal who is present in the Court states that she along with her husband-Sudhir Kumar have jointly filed a petition under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. In terms of the settlement arrived at between the parties before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this court, we shall abide by all the terms and conditions and have decided to dissolve our marriage by mutual consent. I have received the LIC Policy and have handed over the R.C. Of the Activa Honda Scooter for changing of the ownership in my name.

¶41

Sd/( Satish Kumar Mittal) Judge Sd/RO&AC ( Paramjeet Singh ) Sd/- in English Judge” Chanchal 08.12.2011

¶42

Statement of Sudhir Kumar son of Prem Chand, resident of H.No.52/8, Model Town, Gurgaon, District Gurgaon on SA

¶43

The respondent-Sudhir Kumar, who is present in the Court states that she along with his wife-Chanchal have jointly filed a petition under Section 13-B of the

¶44

F.A.O. No. 2220 of 2011 (O&M) 6

¶45

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. In terms of the settlement arrived at between the parties before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this court, we shall abide by all the terms and conditions and have decided to dissolve our marriage by mutual consent. I have also handed over the LIC Policy and have received R.C. of Activa Honda Scooter for changing the ownership of the same

¶46

in her name.

¶47

Sd/( Satish Kumar Mittal) Judge Sd/RO&AC ( Paramjeet Singh ) Sd/- in English Judge ” S.Kumar 08.12.2011

¶48

We have once again recorded statements of the

¶49

parties, which read as follows:

¶50

Statement of Sudhir Kumar son of Prem Chand, resident of H.No.52/8, Model Town, Gurgaon, Tehsil and District Gurgaon on SA

¶51

¶52

F.A.O. No. 2220 of 2011 (O&M) 7

¶53

not been able to resolve our difference. I pray that petition under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 be allowed and our marriage by annulled by grant

¶54

of a decree of divorce.

¶55

Sd/( Rajive Bhalla ) Judge Sd/RO&AC (Rakesh Kumar Jain ) Sd/- in English Judge” Sudhir Kumar 16.2.2012

¶56

“Statement of Smt. Chanchal d/o Sh. Jiwan Dass Ahuja, w/o Shri Sudhir Kumar, r/o of H.No.254/21, Gali No.4, Madanpuri, Gurgaon, District Gurgaon on SA

¶57

I have filed a petition under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for dissolution of marriage by mutual consent. Our statements were recorded on 02.06.2011 before the Mediation Centre and 08.12.2011 before this Court. Even after these statements, we have not been able to resolve our difference. I pray that petition under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 be allowed and our marriage by annulled by grant

¶58

of a decree of divorce.

¶59

Sd/( Rajive Bhalla ) Judge Sd/RO&AC (Rakesh Kumar Jain ) Sd/- in English Judge” (Chanchal) Counsel for the parties and the parties, present in

¶60

F.A.O. No. 2220 of 2011 (O&M) 8

¶61

person, pray that as they have not been able to reconcile their differences despite the lapse of six months, of the recording of their statements by the Mediator, their marriage may be dissolved by grant of a decree of divorce by mutual consent.

¶62

We have heard counsel for the parties, considered the statements made by the parites and are satisfied that there is no possibility of the parties, effecting a reconciliation. The only option left, in such a situation, is to grant a decree of divorce by mutual consent. The statements made by parties before the Mediator, the terms and condition of the compromise, and the statements made in court today, clearly establish that there is no possibility of the parties resuming cohabitation, much less continuing to live as husband and wife. The differences between the parties are beyond repair and it would be in the interest of justice and the parties, if the marriage is brought to an end.

¶63

Consequently, we allow the petition and grant a decree of divorce by mutual consent bringing the marriage between Smt. Chanchal and Shri Sudhir Kumar, to an end by dissolve of marriage. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.

¶64

( RAJIVE BHALLA ) JUDGE

¶65

( RAKESH KUMAR JAIN )

¶66

JUDGE

¶67

16.2.2012 VK

Chanchal v. Sudhir Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chanchal v. Sudhir Kumar

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

Ramandeep Kaur & Anr. Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Ajit Singh and Ors. Vs State of Punjab etc.

Ranjit Singh & Ors. Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Ranjodh Singh and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Tota Singh Vs Addl.Director C/H Pb.Etc.

Gram Panchayat Vs Additional Director etc.