Bhavana Jain vs Vipul Jain

After hearing learned counsel for the applicant, this Court is not convinced in respect of the grounds raised by the applicant in the application, more particularly in paragraphs 5 & 6 of the application whereby the Family Court has been blamed for delay, which is contrary to facts on record. Learned counsel for the applicant prays for withdrawal of the application.

Prayer allowed.

MCC stands dismissed as withdrawn.

It is made clear that the withdrawal of the application, however, will not come in the way of Family court to make efforts for amicable settlement of the differences between the applicant and the respondent. It is expected of both the parties to avail the benefit of conciliation/ mediation.

At this stage, learned counsel for the applicant relies upon the order sheet dated 23/01/2018, which is in the following terms:-

"23/01/18

आवेदक सहित श्री उमेश विश्वकर्मा अधिवक्ता उपस्थित। अनावेदिका सहित श्री चक्रवर्ती जैन अधिवक्ता उपस्थित। प्रकरण आवेदक साक्ष्य हेतु नियत है, आवेदन ने अपने मुख्य परीक्षण का शपथपत्र आदेश 18 नियम 4 सीपीसी के अंतर्गत प्रस्तुत किया, जिसकी प्रतिलिपि अनावेदक को दी गयी। श्री चक्रवर्ती जैन ने एक आवेदन पत्र धारा 24 हिंवि0अधि0 के अंतर्गत प्रस्तुत किया, जिसकी प्रति आवेदक अधिवक्ता को प्रदान की गयी। श्री जैन ने निवेदन किया कि मामला मध्यस्थता हेतु सुपुर्द किया जाये। इस पर उपस्थित आवेदन विपुल कुमार जैन का कहना है कि यदि अनावेदिका रहना चाहती है तो उसके माता, पिता, उसके माता पिता से बात करें। वह उसके साथ किसी प्रकार की मध्यस्थता के लिये तत्पर नहीं है, इसलिये प्रकरण को मध्यस्थता हेतु भेजे जाने का कोई भी औचित्य नहीं है। आगामी दिनांक को अनावेदिका अधिवक्ता, आवेदक पर प्रतिपरीक्षण के लिये तत्पर रहें तथा अनावेदिका अधिवक्ता द्वारा प्रस्तुत आवेदन पत्र का जवाब आवेदक अधिवक्ता प्रस्तुत करें। प्रकरण धारा 24 एचएमए के जवाब व आवेदक पर प्रतिपरीक्षण हेतु दिनांक 19.02.18 को पेश हों। "

Placing such reliance, it is urged that the non-applicant is not ready to reconcile.

Learned counsel for the respondent, however, submits that despite the proceedings of 23/01/2018, his client is always ready to get the differences amicably settled.

During course of hearing it is stated on behalf of the respondent that the respondent in presence of the present counsel for the applicant had offered the applicant to come along with him. Learned counsel for the applicant does not dispute this fact. No cogent reason has been adverted at by learned counsel for the applicant as to why and what prevented the applicant not to go with the respondent.

The fact remains that the respondent as per his counsel is still ready to take the appellant along with him as his wife. In that event, it is expected of the Family Court to make one more effort to get the matter mediated through trained mediator who will help out to resolve the dispute between the appellant and the respondent.

It is also expected of the respective counsel to act in a most positive manner to resolve the dispute.

M.C.C. stands disposed of finally in above terms.