Pankaj Parmar vs Shikha Parmar
2005 Latest Caselaw 648 Del

Citation : 2005 Latest Caselaw 648 Del
Judgement Date : 25 April, 2005

Delhi High Court

Pankaj Parmar vs Shikha Parmar on 25 April, 2005

Equivalent citations: 119 (2005) DLT 278, I (2005) DMC 652

Author: O Dwivedi

Bench: O Dwivedi

JUDGMENT

O.P. Dwivedi, J.

1. Marriage between the parties was solemnised on 1.12.95. However, the parties would not pull on well and a joint petition (first motion) for decree of divorce by mutual consent was filed on 6.2.2003, whereon learned Matrimonial Court passed order dated 23.5.2003 granting first motion. Thereafter second motion was filed on 18.12.2004 that is after the expiry of more than 18 months from the order granting first motion. Learned Additional District Judge dismissed the second motion mainly on the ground that the same has been filed beyond 18 months' period as contemplated under Section 13(B)(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act and as such it cannot be entertained. Learned Counsel for the appellant has referred to a decision in the case of Santosh Kumar v. Virendra Kumar, AIR 1986 Rajasthan 128, wherein learned Single Judge took the view that period of 18 months contemplated under Section 13(B)(2) of the Act is the time-limit for withdrawal of the first motion and not outer limit for filing of motion for grant of decree by mutual consent. This duration of 18 months, therefore, should not be taken to be a period of limitation fixed for filing of the second motion. The same view was taken in the case of Santhana Krishnan v. Poongothai Ammal, II (1989) DMC 443. Learned Counsel for the respondent has no dispute with this proposition of law. His main grievance is that even after first motion and after High Court's order dated 13.12.2004, petitioner has cast aspersion on the respondent which should be unconditionally withdrawn, Petitioner is present in Court has seriously regretted the same. Besides, a cheque No. 889876 dated 16.3.2005, for Rs. 2 lakh, drawn on Citi Bank in favor of 'Shikha Parmar' has been handed over to the respondent.

2. Accordingly, in view of law propounded in above mentioned two decisions, this appeal is accepted, and the impugned order is hereby set aside.

3. Parties shall appear before learned Additional District Judge on 26.4.2005 at 2 p.m. and learned Additional District Judge shall dispose of the petition in view of the aforesaid observations.

A copy of this order be given dusty to learned Counsel for the petitioner.