Vijay Kumar vs Smt. Surinder Kaur @ Sunita

Permod Kohli, J.—This appeal has been preferred by the husband against the judgment and decree dated 10.1.2006 passed by the Additional District Judge, Jalandhar, dismissing the Petition u/s 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereafter referred as "the Act'') for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce. While this appeal was taken up on 10.8.2007, parties made an application i.e. C.M. No. 13318-CII/2007 seeking leave of the. Court for conversion of Petition under. Section 13 of the Act into the one u/s 13B of the Act, and prayed for mutual divorce. They also filed written agreement to give effect to the mutual divorce. Vide separate order dated 10.8.2007, C.M. No. 13318-CII of 2007 was allowed and the Petition u/s 13 of the Act was treated as a Petition u/s 13B of the Act. Statements of the parties were also recorded on the same date. Both the parties made a statement that they are living separately for the last six years, and there is no scope for reconciliation. Even permanent alimony stands paid.

The matter was posted for today to consider whether the statutory period of six months for giving effect to the request of the parties for mutual dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce can and should be condoned or not. Parties have brought to the notice of this Court two reported judgments passed by two co-ordinate Benches of this Court in the cases of Mona Jain Vs. Sanjeev Jain, and Niranjan Kumar Vs. Veena Rani, . In the aforesaid judgments, it has been ruled that where a marriage is broken down irretrievably, statutory period of six months can be waived off.

In the present case, marriage was performed on 16.2.2000 at Jalandhar. One son, namely, Vipul, was also born out of the wedlock. However, parties could not enjoy the matrimonial life due to certain disputes and differences. It is on account of certain allegations that the Divorce Petition was filed in the court below. However, after the trial, the court below refused to grant a decree of divorce on the basis of the allegations made in the petition.

From the statements of the parties made before me, it is evident that the parties are residing separately for the last about six years. Both the parties are young. Some criminal cases are also pending, besides a petition before the competent court for appointment of guardian and custody for the minor child. It appears that there is no chance of reconciliation as the parties have gone too far and even involved themselves into criminal litigation. Thus, it appears that the marriage has broken down irretrievably. It will not serve any purpose if they are kept under bond of marriage for another six months. Under the given facts and circumstances, the statutory period of six months for giving effect to the intention of the parties for a mutual divorce is dispensed with.

From the agreement duly executed by the parties and the statements recorded on 10.8.2007 by this Court, it is evident that they have agreed for mutual divorce. Even permanent alimony of Rs. 1,75,000/- has been received by the respondent-wife. The parties have agreed to abide by the order of court of District Judge, Jalandhar to be passed in proceedings for appointment of guardian and custody of the child. They have also agreed for withdrawal of criminal cases against each other. They have also made statements that none of the parties has any claim against each other.

On the basis of the statements of the parties recorded on 10.8.2007 and the agreement duly executed, by them agreeing for mutual divorce, a decree of divorcee by mutual consent is accordingly passed dissolving the marriage between the parties.