IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

Cr.M.P. No. 1669 of 2015
With
W. P. (Cr.) No. 686 of 2015

Sri Amitabh S/o Sri Krishna Bahadur Sinha, Resident of VARDAAN,52 Lower Burdwan Compound, P.O. P.S. Lalpur Ranchi – 1,Jharkhand … (Petitioner in Cr.M.P. No. 1669 of 2015)

Ratna @ Ratna Sinha mother of Shri Amitabh, daughter of Shri R. R.Verma, during benefaction staying with her relatives during Qr. No. E – 243, Sector – II, Opp. Russian Hostel, P. S. Jagarnathpur, P.O. Dhurwa, H.E.C.,District Ranchi 834 004 … (Petitioner in W. P. (Cr.) No. 686 of 2015)

Versus

1. State of Jharkhand
2. Ratna, D/o Sri R. R. Verma Resident of Qr. No. – Sector II, E – 243, Opp – Russian Hostel, PS – Jagarnathpur, PO Dhurwa HEC, Ranchi – 4, Jharkhand … (Opp. Parties in Cr.M.P. No. 1669 of 2015)
1. State of Jharkhand
2. Amitabh, Advocate son of Shri Krishna Bahadur Sinha, Senior Advocate, Jharkhand High Court, proprietor of Vardaan, 52 Lower Burdwan Compound, P.O. amp; P.S. Lalpur, Town amp; District Ranchi – 834001 … (Opp. Parties in W. P. (Cr.) No. 686 of 2015)

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

For a Petitioner : Mr. Anil Kumar, Sr. Advocate

For a State : Mr. Mukesh Kumar, A.P.P.

For a O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Mukesh Kumar Sinha, Advocate

22/30.06.2017

Heard Mr. Anil Kumar, schooled comparison warn appearing for a petitioners, Mr. Manindra Kumar Sinha, schooled warn appearing for a conflicting celebration no. 2 and Mr. Mukesh Kumar, schooled A.P.P. for a State.

Since both these applications arise of a same sequence and engage common doubt of law and fact a same are being approaching of by this common order.

In Cr.M.P. No. 1669 of 2015 a postulant is a father of a conflicting celebration no. 2 who has challenged a sequence antiquated 29.05.2015 upheld in Maintenance Case No. 43 of 2013 by a schooled Principal Judge, Family Court, Ranchi whereby and where underneath a halt upkeep focus elite by a conflicting celebration no. 2 was authorised and a postulant was destined to make remuneration of Rs. 5,000/- per month to a conflicting celebration no. 2.

In W. P. (Cr.) No. 686 of 2015 that has been elite by a mother a primary request is with honour to alteration of a sequence antiquated 29.05.2015 upheld by a schooled Principal Judge, Family Court, Ranchi in Maintenance Case No. 43 of 2013 and for enhancing a same.

A serve request has been done in a pronounced focus to concede a postulant (wife) to revisit her son once in a week preferably on Sunday as it is purported that a respondent no. 2 was never permitting a postulant to accommodate her son.

In both these cases several attempts were done before several forums including a benefaction Court in sequence to arrive during a allotment between a parties. However, a efforts done did not bear any fruit and as such this matter was destined to be listed underneath a streamer “For Admission” so as to finally confirm this emanate on merits. However, during a march of conference both a schooled warn for a parties have staid that a matter has been finally staid between a parties and an interlocutory focus being I. A. No. 5031 of 2017 filed by a postulant in Cr.M.P. No. 1669 of 2015 is on record that has been filed by a conflicting celebration no. 2 from that it appears that pursuant to a allotment arrived during between a parties an focus underneath Section 13b of a Hindu Marriage Act was also filed being Original Maintenance Title Suit No. 349 of 2017 that is still pending. In a pronounced petition underneath Section 13b of a Hindu Marriage Act it was concluded that an volume of Rs. 11,50,000/- was to be paid to a conflicting celebration no. 2 (wife) by a postulant towards full and final allotment and in fact a postulant had already paid an volume of Rs. 5,75,000/- during a time of filing of a focus underneath Section 13b of a Hindu Marriage Act. It was serve concluded on that a rest volume of Rs. 5,75,000/- shall be paid to a conflicting celebration no. 2 during a time of recording of a justification of both a parties during a record underneath Section 13b of a Hindu Marriage Act. It was also concluded therein to repel a cases that have been filed conflicting any other i.e. MT S Case No. 160 of 2011 and Maintenance Case No. 43 of 2013.

It has been staid by a schooled comparison warn appearing for a postulant that given a parties have motionless to detached that would be transparent from a focus elite underneath Section 13b of a Hindu Marriage Act and partial of a terms and conditions of a allotment with honour to creation remuneration of fifty percent of a volume towards permanent subsistence has already been handed over by a postulant to a conflicting celebration no. 2 this box can be approaching of formed on a pronounced concede petition. It has been staid that a parties are vital detached given a year 2009 and, therefore, a orthodox duration of 6 months as contained in a supplies of a Hindu Marriage Act be waived and instruction might be given to a schooled probity subsequent to pass an sequence of mutual divorce on a subsequent date of entrance that is on 04th July, 2017.

Mr. Maninder Kumar Sinha, schooled warn appearing for a conflicting celebration no. 2 in Cr.M.P. No. 1669 of 2015 as good as a postulant in W. P. (Cr.) 686 of 2015 have also frankly certified to a concede that has been effected by a parties and has also staid that he does not have any conflict to a row done by a schooled comparison warn appearing for a postulant with honour to waiving a orthodox duration of 6 months. He has however staid that if such instruction upheld by this Court a rest volume of Rs. 5,75,000/- be handed over to a conflicting celebration no. 2 during a time of recording of justification on 04th July, 2017 itself.

At this, Mr. Anil Kumar, schooled comparison warn appearing for a petitioner, has staid that he is in a position to palm over a pronounced volume to a conflicting celebration no. 2 on 04th July, 2017 itself.

In perspective of a fact that a matter has been compromised between a parties a usually snag that arises in finally final a move underneath Section 13b of a Hindu Marriage Act is a 6 months orthodox duration as envisaged in Section 13b of a pronounced Act.

In a box of Manoj Kedia v. Anupama Kedia reported in 2011 1 DMC 465 (DB) while deliberation a waiver of a orthodox duration of 6 months it was hold as follows:

“13. We have already celebrated in a foregoing paragraphs that a matrimony between a parties had damaged down irretrievably and there is no reasonable probability for re-

union of a parties. They have been vital detached for a final 9 years. Any progression of a authorised standing of a matrimony is not approaching to move out reconciliation. It can usually assistance to intensify their unhappiness by serve fomenting their mutual jealousies. They are litigating conflicting any other on a basement of allegations and counter-allegations for over 9 years. In these circumstances, we are prepared of a opinion that a benefaction focus done by a parties for retraction of matrimony underneath Section 13-B of a Act, 1955 is not a outcome of any collusion between a parties nor was it a outcome of any flitting proviso of mental anguish or proxy felling of unhappiness. We have no doubt that direct of divorce underneath Section 13-B of a Act, 1955 can be upheld though serve watchful for statuary duration of 6 months as per Section 13-B(2) of a Act, 1955.”

In a box of Mittal Ramesh Panchal Another v. Nil reported in 2014 1 DMC 20 a same emanate was once again deliberate and was motionless as follows:-

“10. The orthodox duration of 6 months supposing underneath Section 13B(2) has been supposing with a specific vigilant that a probability of final notation settlement can be worked out in such matters. In management of justice, a Courts are approaching to do a probity between a parties by overcoming a technical difficulties, entrance in a approach of imparting justice. The waiver of orthodox duration of 6 months yet not privately supposing though same can be review in supplies as a categorical intent of sustenance is to libralize divorce. The sustenance can't be review in acerbity so as to make a sustenance ineffectual and meaningless. The duration of 6 months is zero though duration supposing with a perspective to capacitate parties to recur their preference and instead of dissolving their matrimony solve their difference. It was never a goal of a Legislature that such duration is to be celebrated irrespective of a contribution of a box wherein a matrimony has been irretrievably damaged and there are no chances of settlement between a parties or it would be fatuous practice to wait for 6 months.”

Since as it appears that a matrimony has irretrievably damaged down between a parties and a parties carrying supposed a pronounced fact have finally motionless to detached instead of reconciling their marital life that is reflected in a focus filed underneath Section 13b of a Hindu Marriage Act and in perspective of a endeavour that has been given by a postulant with honour to creation remuneration of a rest volume of Rs. 5,75,000/- on a date when a justification of both a parties are available this focus is approaching of with a instruction to a Principal Judge, Family Court, Ranchi to relinquish a orthodox duration of 6 months and after holding justification of a postulant as good as a conflicting celebration no. 2 pass required sequence on a 13b focus on 04th July, 2017 itself that according to a schooled warn for a particular parties is a subsequent date of conference in a matrimonial pretension suit.

In perspective of a submissions modernized by a schooled warn for a parties, a postulant as good as a conflicting celebration no. 2 shall make themselves benefaction on 04th July, 2017 before a schooled Principal Judge, Family Court, Ranchi who shall take required stairs in suitability with law as has been indicated above in this order.

It is serve done transparent that a postulant shall palm over a coupon of Rs. 5,75,000/- drawn in foster of a conflicting celebration no. 2 (wife) during a time of recording of a justification of a postulant as good as a conflicting celebration no. 2 before a probity of schooled Principal Judge, Family Court, Ranchi.

With a aforesaid observations and directions, these applications are approaching of.

Pending I.A., if any, also stands approaching of.

Let a duplicate of this sequence be handed over a schooled warn for a particular parties.

Let this sequence be communicated by FAX to a endangered probity immediately.

(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.) Umesh/-