SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Nitin Laxmikant Meher vs Nilima Nitin Meher on 25 March, 2019

501-12335-14044-2018.odt

Shailaja
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.12335 OF 2018
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.14044 OF 2018

Nitin Laxmikant Meher ] Petitioner
Vs.
Nilima Nitin Meher ] Respondent

…..
Mr. Atul P. Vanarse, learned Counsel for the Petitioner.
Mr. Bhushan Walimbe, learned Counsel for the Respondent.
…..

CORAM : R.G. KETKAR, J.

DATE : 25th MARCH, 2019.

P.C.

Not on board. At the joint request of learned Counsel for the
parties, taken up in the production board.

2. Heard Mr. Vanarse, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr.
Walimbe, learned Counsel for the respondent in both the Petitions at length.

3. Writ Petition No.12335 of 2018 takes exception to the order dated
27th September, 2018 passed by the learned Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division,
Panvel below Exhibit 103 in H.M.P. No.89 of 2012. By that order, the learned
trial Judge allowed application Exhibit 103 made by the respondent and
directed the petitioner to deposit interim maintenance of Rs.3,00,000/- in the
Court on or before next date of hearing. Grievance of the petitioner is that he
had filed Petition at Exhibit 95 in the trial Court seeking review of the

1 of 5

::: Uploaded on – 26/03/2019 27/03/2019 01:05:24 :::
501-12335-14044-2018.odt

common order dated 22nd June, 2017 passed by the learned trial Judge below
Exhibit 64 and Exhibit 81. Though, this Review Petition is pending, the learned
trial Judge by the impugned order had directed the petitioner to deposit
Rs.3,00,000/-.

4. Writ Petition No.14044 of 2018 takes exception to the order dated
14th February, 2017 passed below Exhibit 61 as also the order dated 27 th
September, 2018 passed below Exhibit 114 by the learned trial Judge. By order
dated 14th February, 2017, application Exhibit 61 made by the petitioner for
cancelling Vakalatnama filed by Advocate Eknath Chavan for the respondent
was rejected. By order dated 27 th September, 2018 below Exhibit 114, the
learned trial Judge rejected the application for condoning delay in filing the
Review Petition.

5. The petitioner had instituted H.M.P. No.89 of 2012 against the
respondent in the Court of Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Panvel under
section 13 (1) (i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short ‘Act’) claiming
divorce on the ground of cruelty. The learned trial Judge awarded interim
maintenance @ Rs.12,000/- per month to the respondent. The learned trial
Judge also directed the petitioner to deposit interim maintenance of
Rs.3,00,000/- till 30th October, 2017.

6. The parties decided to settle the controversy amicably. The parties
agreed to convert the Marriage Petition filed by the petitioner into Divorce
Petition by mutual consent under section 13-B of the Act. The petitioner has
agreed to pay lumpsum amount of Rs.23,00,000/- to the respondent towards
permanent alimony. The respondent has agreed that save and except the
amount of Rs.23,00,000/-, she will not have any future claim of whatsoever
nature against the petitioner.

2 of 5

::: Uploaded on – 26/03/2019 27/03/2019 01:05:24 :::
501-12335-14044-2018.odt

7. The matter was heard on 19th December, 2018. On that day, the
consent terms duly signed by the parties and their Advocates were presented
before this Court. Undertakings given by the respective parties were accepted
as undertaking to this Court. It was observed that ordinarily Petitions could
have been disposed of on the basis of the consent terms. However, the learned
Counsel for the parties requested the Court to keep the Petitions pending till 4 th
March, 2019, since the compliance was to be made upto 1 st March, 2019. The
respondent was permitted to withdraw Rs.3,00,000/- deposited in this Court
forthwith. In terms of clause (5) of the consent terms, the petitioner was
required to pay Rs.20,00,000/- to the respondent by way of Banker’s Cheque or
demand draft before 1st March, 2019. These Banker’s Cheques or demand
drafts were to be made out in the maiden name of the respondent Nilima Vilas
Mekade. The consent terms were marked ‘X’ for identification.

8. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has deposited Rs.3,00,000/-
in this Court. From the office remark, it is evident that the respondent has
withdrawn Rs.3,00,000/- on 15th March, 2019. The petitioner has agreed to
pay balance amount of Rs.20,00,000/- by way of bankers cheques or demand
drafts on or before 1st March, 2019. Upon payment of Rs.20,00,000/- by
demand draft and upon compliance of all other terms, the matter was to be
placed before this Court for passing order of divorce by mutual consent. The
consent terms also provide that in case the amount is not paid on or before 1 st
March, 2019, consent of the respondent/wife for divorce by mutual consent
will automatically come to an end and the money already paid to her shall be
adjusted towards the maintenance amount.

9. The matter was placed before this Court on 1 st March, 2019 when
the learned Counsel for the petitioner produced following bankers cheques
drawn on Bank of India, Panvel Branch in the maiden name of the respondent.

3 of 5

::: Uploaded on – 26/03/2019 27/03/2019 01:05:24 :::
501-12335-14044-2018.odt

Date Banker’s Amount
Cheque

25/2/2019 027945 7,00,000/-
25/2/2019 027946 7,00,000/-
28/2/2019 227952 6,00,000/-
————-
Total: Rs.20,00,000/-
(Rupees Twenty Lacks only)

The petitioner has filed affidavit dated 28 th February, 2019 stating therein that
he has complied all the terms incorporated in the consent terms. The petitioner
has withdrawn the complaints. Thus, the petitioner has complied clauses 5 and
8 of the consent terms. At the time of hearing the Petitions, the respondent
made grievance that she was not paid Rs.3,00,000/- as per the order dated 19 th
December, 2018. She, therefore, sought time. At her request, matter was
adjourned to 28th March, 2019. As the petitioner and the respondent are
present in the Court today, at the joint request of learned Counsel for the
parties, the Petitions were taken up in the production board.

10. I have interacted with the respondent, her Advocate, the petitioner
as also his Advocate in the open Court at length. During the course of
interaction, the respondent expressed her willingness to give divorce by mutual
consent. She also accepted that she has received Rs.3,00,000/- from the
Registry. She is, however, not willing to accept the above bankers Cheques
drawn in her maiden name. It was, therefore, suggested to her that she accepts
the bankers cheques and to that effect, she signs the receipt. The Bankers
Cheques will be retained by her Advocate. In case, she changes her mind, she
can collect the Bankers Cheques from her Advocate. It was also made clear
and explained to her that the Bankers Cheques are valid for a period of three

4 of 5

::: Uploaded on – 26/03/2019 27/03/2019 01:05:24 :::
501-12335-14044-2018.odt

months from the date of issuance. She has understood the same. She has
accepted this suggestion. Accordingly, she has signed the receipt which is taken
on record and marked ‘Y’ for identification.

11. Learned Counsel for the parties seek leave to amend the Divorce
Petition filed by the petitioner under section 13(1) (i-a) of the Act into
Petition for divorce by mutual consent under section 13-B of the Act. They
further submit that it may be made clear that the amendment relates back to
the date of filing of the Divorce petition i.e 21st June, 2012.

12. In view thereof, leave to amend the Petition filed under section 13
(1) (i-a) into Petition for divorce by mutual consent under section 13-B of the
Act is granted. Amendment shall relate back to the date of filing of the Divorce
Petition. The respondent has acknowledged receipt of Bankers Cheques of
Rs.20,00,000/-. The same shall be retained by her Advocate. After perusing the
consent terms, I am satisfied that the controversy between the parties is
lawfully settled in terms of the consent terms. The parties have acted upon the
consent terms. The Petitions are, therefore, disposed of in terms of the consent
terms. The decree shall be drawn accordingly.

13. The parties to act upon the authenticated copy of this order.

[R.G. KETKAR, J.]

5 of 5

::: Uploaded on – 26/03/2019 27/03/2019 01:05:24 :::

Leave a Reply

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

Copyright © 2021 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