SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Dhale Ram vs Pushpa Devi on 14 March, 2018

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA

CrMMO No. 416 of 2017
Decided on: March 14, 2018

.
Dhale Ram ………Petitioner

Versus

Pushpa Devi …Respondent

Coram
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge
Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes.

For the petitioner: Mr. Maan Singh, Advocate.

For the respondent: Ms. Meghna Kashav, legal aid counsel.

Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)

Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment

dated 16.5.2017 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge,

Kullu, HP in Criminal Appeal No. 29 of 2016, affirming order dated

24.9.2015 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kullu,

Himachal Pradesh in Petition No. 30-I of 2014, under Section 12 of

the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005

(hereinafter, ‘Act’), whereby application filed by respondent No. 1

under Section 12 of the Act was allowed and protection, residence

and maintenance orders came to be passed in favour of respondent

No. 1, petitioner has approached this Court by way of instant

proceedings under Section 482 CrPC.

Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment? .

16/03/2018 23:24:28 :::HCHP
-2-

2. For having bird’s eye view, necessary facts shorn of

unnecessary details are that marriage between petitioner and

respondent No. 1 was solemnized in the year 2011 and one child

.

was born out of their wedlock. Allegedly the petitioner started

abusing and beating respondent No. 1 at the instance of his

parents, who were insisting upon him to give divorce to respondent

No. 1 and marry some other girl. It is also alleged that petitioner

compelled respondent No. 1 to leave her matrimonial home.

Subsequently, respondent filed an application/complaint under

Section 12 of the Act averring therein that she wanted to live with

her husband but since she apprehends danger to her life,

protection, residence and maintenance orders may be passed in her

favour. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, taking note of the

material adduced on record by the respective parties, allowed the

application filed by respondent No. 1 and prohibited petitioner and

respondent No. 2 from committing any act of domestic violence and

directed petitioner to provide accommodation to respondent No. 1,

consisting of one room with kitchen, bath room and toilet. Learned

trial Court also reserved liberty to respondent No. 1 to hire

alternative accommodation in the event of failure on the part of

petitioner to provide accommodation, rent and electricity bills

whereof were to be paid by the petitioner. Learned Chief Judicial

Magistrate further directed the petitioner to give monthly

16/03/2018 23:24:28 :::HCHP
-3-

maintenance of `2,000/- to respondent No. 1 and `1,000/- to her

minor child.

3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid

.

order passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, petitioner

preferred a criminal appeal under Section 29 of the Act before

Additional Sessions Judge, Kullu, Himachal Pradesh. However, the

fact remains that the said appeal was dismissed, as a result of

which order dated 24.9.2015 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate,

therein to set aside impugned

Kullu, came to be upheld. In the aforesaid background, petitioner

has approached this Court by way of instant petition praying

judgment passed by Additional

Sessions Judge, Kullu and order passed by Chief Judicial

Magistrate.

4. During proceedings of the case, this Court solely with a

view to explore possibility of amicable settlement inter se parties,

directed both the parties to remain present in the Court. On

1.1.2018, Ms. Meghna Kashav, learned legal aid counsel appearing

for respondent No. 1, on instructions of her client, stated before

this Court that her client is ready and willing to give divorce to the

petitioner provided she is offered sufficient amount of money to

maintain herself and her child.

5. Today, learned counsel representing the petitioner filed

an application under Section 482 CrPC, seeking therein permission

to place on record compromise arrived at inter se parties and copy

16/03/2018 23:24:28 :::HCHP
-4-

of petition filed under Section 13B of Hindu Marriage Act in the

competent Court of law for dissolution of marriage by way of

mutual consent. While referring to the averments contained in the

.

application, learned counsel representing the parties stated before

this Court that both the parties have compromised the matter inter

se them amicably and in this regard, they have reduced into writing

the compromise (Annexure A-1). Learned counsel representing the

parties also invited attention of this Court to the petition having

been filed by them jointly under Section 13B of Hindu Marriage Act

for dissolution of marriage by way of decree of divorce by mutual

consent in the court of learned District Judge, Kullu.

6. This Court with a view to ascertain the correctness of

the aforesaid submissions having been made by the learned

counsel representing the parties also recorded statements of

petitioner and respondent No. 1, who stated on oath before this

Court that they have compromised the matter inter se them,

whereby petitioner has agreed to pay a sum of ` 1.00 Lakh to the

respondent No.1 for her and her minor child’s maintenance.

Respondent No. 1 also stated before this Court that she has

received `50,000/- in cash from the petitioner on 12.3.2018,

whereas, remaining amount shall be paid by the petitioner at the

time of recording of her statement in petition under Section 13B of

Hindu Marriage Act. Petitioner also stated before this Court that

apart from aforesaid money, he has agreed to transfer his share of

16/03/2018 23:24:28 :::HCHP
-5-

the landed property in favour of his minor son on or before

12.4.2018. In terms of aforesaid agreement, respondent No.1

Pushpa Devi also undertook to withdraw the petition filed by her

.

under Section 125 (3) CrPC arising out of order passed in

application under Section 12 of the Act. Their statements have

been taken on record.

7. In view of aforesaid development, learned counsel for

the parties prayed that present petition having been filed by the

petitioner may be disposed of with a direction to the learned

District Judge, Kullu to pass appropriate orders in the petition

having been filed by them jointly, under Section 13B of Hindu

Marriage Act for dissolution of marriage by way of decree of divorce

by mutual consent.

8. After having carefully gone through the averments

contained in the compromise as well as statements of petitioner

and respondent No. 1 recorded on oath, this court sees no

impediment in accepting aforesaid prayer having been made on

behalf of the parties to the lis.

9. This court is of the view that there is no possibility of

reproachment between the parties and marriage has broken beyond

repair, as such, statutory period of six months as envisaged under

Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act for grant of divorce by

mutual consent can be waived of.

16/03/2018 23:24:28 :::HCHP
-6-

10. In this regard, it would be apt to take note of the

judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Veena vs. State

(Government of NCT of Delhi) and another, (2011) 14 SCC 614,

.

wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has held as under:

“We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and
talked to the parties. The appellant has filed a divorce

petition under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage
Act, 1955, being HMA No.397/2008 which is pending
before the Court of Sanjeev Mattu, Additional District
Judge, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi. In the peculiar
facts and circumstances of this case, we deem it

appropriate to transfer the said divorce petition to this
Court and take the same on Board. The said divorce
petition is converted into one under Section 13B of the
Hindu Marriage Act and we grant divorce to the parties

by mutual consent.”

11. Otherwise also, it is quite apparent from the record that

the parties are not living together for a considerable time and

petition under Section 12 of the Act came to be instituted in the

competent Court of law in the year 2014 i.e. on 12.5.2014.

12. This court after having interacted with the parties, sees

no possibility of reconciliation inter se them and as such, no

fruitful purpose will be served in case matter is kept pending for

another six months before passing decree of divorce by mutual

consent.

13. Hon’ble Apex Court in Priyanka Khanna v. Amit

Khanna, (2011) 15 SCC 612, has further held as under:

“7. We also see from the trend of the litigations pending
between the parties that the relationship between the
couple has broken down in a very nasty manner and
there is absolutely no possibility of a rapprochement

16/03/2018 23:24:28 :::HCHP
-7-

between them even if the matter was to be adjourned
for a period of six months as stipulated under Section
13B of the Hindu Marriage Act. 8. We also see from the
record that the first litigation had been fled by the
respondent husband on 2-6-2006 and a petition for

.

divorce had also been filed by him in the year 2007. We

therefore, feel that it would be in the interest of justice
that the period of six months should be waived in view
of the above facts.”

14. Accordingly, in view of aforesaid law laid down by the

Hon’ble Apex Court, statutory period of six months deserves to be

waived of taking note of the fact that marriage between the parties

15.

r to
has broken beyond repair and there is no possibility of parties

living together.

Consequently, in view of detailed discussion made

herein above, present petition is allowed. Judgment dated

16.5.2017 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Kullu, HP in

Criminal Appeal No. 29 of 2016 and order dated 24.9.2015 passed

by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kullu, Himachal Pradesh

in Petition No. 30-1 of 2014, are quashed and set aside. District

Judge Kullu is directed to expeditiously decide the petition under

Section 13B of Hindu Marriage Act without waiting for statutory

period of six months to expire.

Pending applications, if any, are disposed of.

(Sandeep Sharma)
Judge
March 14, 2018
(Vikrant)

16/03/2018 23:24:28 :::HCHP

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2020 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation