Manpreet Singh Talwar vs Sukhwinder Kaur Talwar
2010 Latest Caselaw 2470 Del

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                   CM (M) 622/2010

                                     Date of Decision: May 07, 2010

      MANPREET SINGH TALWAR               ..... Petitioner
               Through: Mr. Rajiv Kataria, Adv.

                           versus

      SUKHWINDER KAUR TALWAR                         ..... Respondent
              Through:  NEMO.
%
      CORAM:
      HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE ARUNA SURESH

     (1)     Whether reporters of local paper may be
             allowed to see the judgment?
     (2)     To be referred to the reporter or not?               yes
     (3)     Whether the judgment should be reported               yes
             in the Digest ?
                         JUDGMENT

ARUNA SURESH, J. (Oral)

CM (M) 622/2010 and CM APPL Nos.8583-85/2010

1. Petitioner has filed this petition invoking the powers of this

Court under Article 227 of the Constitution being aggrieved

of the order of the Trial Court dated 11.08.2009.

2. Petitioner filed a petition for divorce on the grounds of cruelty

and desertion against his Respondent wife. Respondent in her

written statement admitted the claim and prayed for decree for

divorce. Accordingly, Petitioner filed an application under

Order 12 Rule 6 CPC for passing of a decree of divorce on the

basis of the admission made by the Respondent. Respondent

contested the said application and claimed that she was

subjected to cruelty by the Petitioner and sought divorce on

her own plea of cruelty. She also desired adjudication of her

claim for interim maintenance. The Trial Court dismissed the

said application observing:-

".... This is a petition for Divorce under the provision of HMA. A decree for Divorce can only be passed on the basis of admission if the other party admits the grounds and not merely for the reason that the other party prays for the same relief. If the party seeks a common relief than, the provision would be different and the parties can approach this court by filing the petition by mutual consent. As far as the petition is concerned, the petitioner has substantiated his case by proving the allegations of cruelty and desertion which has been specifically denied by the Respondent. Accordingly, the application is not maintainable and same is dismissed...."

3. Mr. Rajiv Kataria, counsel for the Petitioner has submitted

that Trial Court failed to consider that the Respondent has

admitted the claim of the Petitioner and had agreed to obtain a

decree for divorce. It is also argued that the marriage between

the parties has irretrievably broken down and parties agreed

for mutual divorce and that the Respondent has demanded a

sum of Rs.1 crore for settlement of her claim towards

stridhan, dowry articles, permanent alimony, etc. The order

of the Trial Court, dismissing the application therefore, is un-

affirmed and illegal.

4. Under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC, the Court has the power to pass

a judgment where the claim is admitted. Court has

jurisdiction to enter a judgment and to pass a decree on

admitted claim. The object of the Rule is to enable the party

to obtain a speedy judgment at least to the extent of the relief

to which according to the admission of the defendant, the

plaintiff is entitled. Wherein other party has made a plain

admission entitling the plaintiff to succeed, the Court should

apply principles of order 12 Rule 6 CPC and enter a

judgment. Where there is a clear admission of facts on the

face of it, it is impossible for the party making such admission

to succeed, the Court can deliver a proper judgment.

5. In the facts and circumstances of this case, when both the

parties have alleged commission of acts of cruelty against

each other and none of the parties have admitted any of such

allegations, it cannot be said that Respondent admitted in

unequivocal terms that she is ready to grant divorce to the

Petitioner on the grounds on which he has claimed.

6. Irretrievable break down of marriage is not a ground available

to the Petitioner under Section 13 of the Act. However,

parties to the petition can claim divorce on the grounds of

irretrievable break down of marriage under Section 13 (B) of

the Act by mutual consent. Both the parties are eagerly

contesting the case of each other.

7. Under these circumstances, the Trial Court rightly dismissed

the application observing that there was no admission made

by the Respondent. She has denied and controverted the

allegations of cruelty and desertion in her written statement.

8. Hence, I find no merit in the petition, the same is accordingly

dismissed.

ARUNA SURESH (JUDGE) MAY 07, 2010 vk