Skip to main content

Divorce by Mutual Consent by Waiving the Statutory Period of Waiting [SC Judgment]

Constitution of India - Article 142 - Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - S.13 B - granted the decree of divorce by mutual consent by waiving the statutory period of waiting.

AIR 2016 SC 3840 : (2017) 11 SCC 241 : 2016 (8) Scale 145 : 2016 (6) ALD(SC) 59 : 2017 (2) ALT(SC) 31 : 2017 (1) CalLT 73 : 2016 (122) CLT 615 : 2017 (1) JCLR 70 : 2016 (4) RCR(Civil) 617 : 2016 (4) RLW 3280
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
[KURIAN JOSEPH] AND [ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN] JJ;
AUGUST 04, 2016
INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NOS. 3 & 4 OF 2016 IN TRANSFER PETITION (C) NO.569 OF 2014
ADITI WADHERA PETITIONER
VERSUS
VIVEK KUMAR WADHERA RESPONDENT
J U D G M E N T
KURIAN, J.
1. By way of transfer Petition (C) No. 569 of 2014, the petitioner-wife had approached this Court for transfer of Suit No. HMA 32/2013 titled `Vivek Kumar Varinder Wadhera Vs. Aditi Vivek Kumar Wadhera' filed under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, from District & Sessions Court, Panchkula, Haryana to the Family Court, Pune, Maharashtra.
2. During the pendency of the proceedings before this Court, parties were referred to mediation. Thanks to the cooperation extended by the parties and the learned counsel appearing for the parties, it is heartening to note that the parties have arrived at an amicable settlement of the entire disputes. The memorandum of settlement has been produced before this Court.
3. It is submitted that the monetary part of the settlement has been complied with and what remains is only order on the pending criminal cases and also the application for divorce on mutual consent.
4. Since the parties have settled their disputes amicably, we are of the view that the interest of justice would be met, in case, the whole disputes are also finally settled. Accordingly, RCC No. 2498 of 2011 titled `State of Maharashtra Vs. Vivek Kumar Varinder Wadhera, Varinder Shorilal Wadhera, Vipon Varinder Wadhera & Vibha Karun Sekhri, RCC No.5144 of 2013 titled 'Aditi Vivek Wadhera Vs. Vivek Kumar Wadhera & Ramesh Grover and Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.1068 of 2011 titled `Aditi Vivek Wadhera Vs. Vivek Kumar Varinder Wadhera, Varinder Shorilal Wadhera, Vipon Varinder Wadhera & Vibha Karun Sekhri, pending on the file of First Class, Judicial Magistrate, Pune would stand quashed.
5. The following cases will also stand disposed of:
(i) Criminal Revision No.134 of 2015 titled `Varinder Shorilal Wadhera & Vipon Varinder Wadhera Vs. State of Mahrashtra pending on the file of Sessions Judge,Pune.
(ii) Criminal Revision No. 73 of 2015 titled `Vivek Varinder Wadhera Vs. State of Mahrashtra, pending before the Sessions Judge, Pune.
(iii) Criminal Revision No.51 of 2015 titled `Vibha Sekhri Vs. State of Mahrashtra, pending before the Sessions Judge, Pune.
(iv) Criminal Appeal No.21 of 2012 titled `Vivek Varinder Wadhera, Varinder Shorilal Wadhera, Vipon Varinder Wadhera & Vibha Karun Sekhri Vs. Aditi Vivek Wadhera & Anr., pending before the Sessions Judge, Pune.
6. Aditi Vivek Kumar Wadhera, wife and Vivek Kumar Varinder Wadhera-husband are present before the Court. It is submitted that they have lived as husband and wife only for a few days in the year 2010. Both parties have exercised their free will and have taken a conscious decision to part and put an end to all other litigation as well. They have also filed a joint petition for dissolution of marriage by mutual consent under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act before the District Court.
7. Having regard to the background of the several litigations between the parties over a period of five years, background of the parties living separately for more than five years, submission of Mr. Vivek Kumar Varinder Wadhera that he has to go back to his work place in U.S.A and also having regard to the submission of Aditi Vivek Kumar Wadhera that she has now to think of her future, we are of the view that it is a fit case to invoke our jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India and grant a decree of divorce by mutual consent by waiving the statutory period of waiting.
8. Therefore, the marriage between Aditi Vivek Kumar Wadhera and Vivek Kumar Wadhera stands dissolved by decree of mutual consent. HMA No. 32/2013 on the file of District & Sessions Court, Panchkula, Haryana shall stand disposed of accordingly.
9. The terms of settlement dated 13.6.2015 will form part of the decree.
10. We make it clear that there shall not be any restraint on the travel of both the parties and their family members on account of criminal cases referred to above, since we have quashed the same.
11. I.A. Nos.3 & 4 of 2016 stand disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Presumptions are the Bats of the Law, Flitting in the Twilight, but Disappearing in the Sunshine of Actual Facts [ORDER]

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 -  Section 138 -  failure on the part of the complainant to produce his account statement and absence of entry in accounts maintained by him regarding loan advanced to the accused, does show that there was no material to support the basic facts on which the entire case of the complainant was based. Sufficient material was available on record    whereby the defence of the accused became probable. In such a situation, the presumption under the provisions of the Act ceased to operate and the burden fell upon the complainant to prove his case, which he failed to do by placing on record cogent evidence.

500+ Supreme Court of India Judgments on Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 with Head Notes & Citations

1. Mallamma (dead) By Lrs. Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. [07-04-2014] 

Adverse Possession | Ravinder Kaur Grewal v. Manjit Kaur, C.A. No. 7764 of 2014 07-08-2019 SC

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA |  Arun Mishra , S. Abdul Nazeer & M.R. Shah C.A. No.7764 of 2014 with S.L.P. (C) Nos. 8332 - ­8333 of 2014 Radhakrishna Reddy (d) Through Lrs. v. G. Ayyavoo & Ors. August 07, 2019 Limitation Act, 1963 - Article 65 - Adverse Possession - Plea of acquisition of title by adverse possession can be taken by plaintiff under Article 65 of the Limitation Act and there is no bar under the Limitation Act, 1963 to sue on aforesaid basis in case of infringement of any rights of a plaintiff. A person in possession cannot be ousted by another person except by due procedure of law and once 12 years' period of adverse possession is over, even owner's right to eject him is lost and the possessory owner acquires right, title and interest possessed by the outgoing person/owner as the case may be against whom he has prescribed. In our opinion, consequence is that once the right, title or interest is acquired it can be used as a sword by the plaintiff as well...