Shyam Sundar Gupta vs Baby Gupta

Mr. D.N. Patel, J.—Earlier, vide order dated 9th March, 2016, at the request by the counsel appearing for both sides, this matter was sent to the mediation center at Jharkhand State Legal Services Authority, Nyay Sadan, Doranda, Ranchi for settlement of their disputes through mediation and now they have agreed upon the terms and conditions for divorce. As per the said terms and conditions, the appellant has agreed to make payment of Rs. 6,00,000/- by way of Bank Draft payable in the name of the respondent and if agreed by both of them, First Appeal No. 340 of 2014 may be brought to an end on payment of Rs. 6,00,000/- by the appellant to the respondent. Further, according to the said terms and conditions, In the criminal revision application bearing Criminal Revision No. 348 of 2007, which is pending in the High Court in connection with this matter, an application may be filed narrating the facts that the parties had jointly compromised the dispute between them and the maintenance case filed by the respondent, being Maintenance Case No. 415 of 2014 pending before the Family Court, Dhanbad will be withdrawn.

Thus, having heard counsel for both sides and looking to the Result of mediation (Letter No. 1250 dated 29th April, 2016), it appears that the terms and conditions of settlement between the parties are as under:

"The terms and conditions are as follows:

That during mediation in spite of my best efforts and endeavours, both the parties did not agree for their reunion, 2but they agreed for one time settlement by way of divorce.

That the respondent wife also agreed for divorce from his husband the appellant. The appellant-husband agreed to pay Rupees Six lakhs only by way of Bankdraft payable in her name towards alimony maintenance and compensation for divorce as one time settlement.

That the respondent wife on payment of the agreed amount of Six lakhs will not object if the divorce decree is passed in favour of the appellant.

That both agreed to file joint compromise Petition also in the First Appeal No. 340/14 and in the Criminal Revision which is pending in the Hon''ble High Court.

That both the parties also agreed to get the maintenance Case No. 415/14 pending in the Family Court, Dhanbad, disposed of or withdrawn in the light of compromise.

Both settled their disputes at their sweet will and without any undue influence. Under the circumstances, the disputes of the parties have been settled."

In view of the aforesaid terms of settlement between the parties, the appellant has to pay Rs. 6,00,000/- by way of Bank Draft, which has been paid today vide a Bank Draft bearing number 34547 dated 13.05.2016 drawn on Bank of India, Assansol Branch. The Bank Draft is presented by the appellant before the court, which is handed over to the counsel for the respondent. Counsel for the respondent is accepting the said Bank Draft in presence of his client.

In the light of acceptance of the Bank Draft and as agreed by the parties, this First Appeal is, hereby, allowed. Necessary decree of divorce will be drawn by the Registry of this court. The joint compromise petition will form a part of the decree. We, hereby, quash and set aside the judgment of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Dhanbad in Title Matrimonial Suit No. 27 of 2005, vide order dated 16th September, 2014 and decree dated 18th September, 2014 is also hereby quashed and set aside.

Maintenance Case No. 415/14 preferred by the respondent is also deemed to have been withdrawn today and necessary entry is to be made by the Family Court, Dhanbad in the concerned Register.

In Criminal Revision No. 348 of 2007 preferred by the appellant in the High Court, the report of the mediation as also the order of this court passed today in First Appeal No. 340 of 2014 will be presented by this appellant and they will point out the joint compromise arrived at between the parties.

This First Appeal is allowed and disposed of in view of the aforesaid directions.

It would not be out of context to mention here that in 24 districts of the State of Jharkhand there are 25 methods of narration of Matrimonial Suits. There are varieties of methods, viz. in the present case divorce application filed in the Family Court is titled as "Title Matrimonial Suit", while in other districts such cases are narrated as "Matrimonial (Title) Suit".

We think that the word ''Title'' is not necessary because neither the wife nor the husband is a commodity or property, which can be owned by anybody. This practise of using different type of nomenclature for divorce cases creates hurdle in maintenance of computerised data as per Pune version of e-court project because we have to insert the number of the lower court cases and though all the cases are for divorce, the trial courts name the cases differently. Hence, proper data cannot be generated in absence of a common nomenclature for the State of Jharkhand and therefore, common nomenclature for all the 24 districts of the State of Jharkhand is an immediate requirement.

We have already referred few cases to Hon''ble the Chief Justice for a decision to be taken regarding common nomenclature for all such cases and with respect to the present case also the Registry of this court is directed that order passed today in this First Appeal and a copy of the order dated 16th September, 2014 passed by the trial court in Title Matrimonial Suit No. 27 of 2005 are to be placed before Hon''ble the Chief Justice for a decision regarding common nomenclature.