Jharkhand High Court
Nand Kishore Prasad vs Smt. Rajni Devi @ Babita on 23 January, 2025
Author: Rongon Mukhopadhyay
Bench: Rongon Mukhopadhyay
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
F.A. No. 90 of 2020
Nand Kishore Prasad, son of Late Ajay Prasad, resident of Gouri Shankar
Prasad, Jugsalai, PO + PS: Jugsalai, Jamshedpur, District: East Singhbhum.
... Appellant
Versus
Smt. Rajni Devi @ Babita, wife of Nand Kishore Prasad, daughter of B.N.
Bhagat, resident of Road No.4, Quarter No. 3/1/4, Bagbera Colony, PO +
PS: Bagbera , Jamshedpur, District: East Singhbhum.
... Respondent
---
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI
For the Appellant : Mr. Arvind Kumar Choudhary, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mr. Ajay Kumar Sah, Advocate
---
19/23.01.2025
Heard Mr. Arvind Kumar Choudhary, learned counsel for the
appellant and Mr. Ajay Kumar Sah, learned counsel appearing for the
respondent.
2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated
27.02.2020 (decree signed on 16.03.2020) passed by Sri Sunil Kumar
Singh, learned Principal Judge, Family Court, East Singhbhum,
Jamshedpur in Original Suit No. 501 of 2016, whereby and whereunder,
suit preferred by the appellant herein under section 13(1)(ia)(ib) of the
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 has been dismissed.
3. During the pendency of the appeal, a joint compromise
petition being IA No. 10899 of 2024 has been filed from which it appears
that both the parties have decided to amicably settle the dispute on the
following terms and conditions:
"(i) That the appellant (husband) and the respondent (wife)
have settled all their dispute and they have agreed to
separate from each other and dissolve their marriage subject
to the condition that the appellant (husband) will pay
Rs.1500000/- (Fifteen lacs only) to respondent (wife) as
permanent alimony.
(ii) That it has been agreed between the parties that the
appellant (husband) will pay Rs.10,00,000/- (Ten lacs only)
to respondent (wife) by way of demand draft on the date of
judgment which is fixed on 5.10.2024 in connection to
Jugsalai (Bagbera) PS Case No.3/2008 corresponding to GR
Case No. 70/2008 filed by the respondent (wife) against the
appellant, pending in the Court of Sri D.R. Tirkey, learned
Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Jamshedpur. It is to state that
since both the parties have already entered into compromise
therefore a separate joint compromise petition will be filed in
Jugsalai (Bagbera) PS No.3/2008 corresponding to GR Case
No. 70/2008 on 3.10.2024 for disposal of the said case which
is fixed on 5.10.2024.
(iii) That it has further been agreed between the parties that
the appellant (husband) will pay Rs.500000/- (Five lacs only)
to the respondent (wife) by way of demand draft after three
months on the date fixed by the Hon'ble Court for passing
the final judgment and decree of dissolution of marriage.
(iv) That upon signing of the present joint compromise
petition the respondent (wife) will not be entitled for any
maintenance from the appellant (husband) nor she will
claim any enhancement of maintenance amount or any
arrear amount from the appellant and the respondent (wife)
will file a necessary petition in the learned Court below on
3.10.2024 for not to deduct the maintenance from the salary
of the appellant awarded to her in Original Maintenance
Case No. 197/2008 by Principal Judge, Family Court,
Jamshedpur. It has also been agreed between the parties that
the respondent (wife) will not claim any enhancement of
maintenance amount which has been awarded in Misc.
Alteration Case No. 21/2019 by Principal Judge, Family
Court, Jamshedpur.
(v) That it has also been agreed between the parties that the
respondent (wife) will return the medical book to the
appellant (husband) on the date fixed by Hon'ble Court for
disposal."
4. It has been submitted by Mr. Arvind Kumar Choudhary,
learned counsel for the appellant that Jugsalai (Bagbera) PS No.3/2008
which was instituted by the respondent herein has been disposed of on
the basis of the compromise and so has Misc. Alteration Case No.
21/2019. It has also been submitted that the amount of Rs.10,00,000/- by
way of demand draft has been earlier handed over to the learned
counsel for the appellant and the balance amount of Rs.5,00,000/- which
by way of draft is in his possession is being handed over to Mr. Ajay
Kumar Sah, learned counsel appearing for the respondent who in turn
has handed over the medical book of the appellant to Mr. Arvind
Kumar Choudhary, learned counsel appearing for the appellant.
5. An interlocutory application has been filed being IA No. 900
of 2025 in terms of section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 wherein
the terms and conditions which have been agreed upon and which
finds mention in IA No. 10899 of 2024 have been reiterated and both
the parties have therefore decided to go their separate ways and
accordingly, the present application under section 13B of the Hindu
Marriage Act, 1955 has been filed.
6. The appellant as well as the respondent are physically present
and both have submitted that they have jointly filed compromise
petition as well as the application under section 13B of the Hindu
Marriage Act, 1955 which is by way of IA No. 900 of 2025.
7. Mr. Arvind Kumar Choudhary, learned counsel appearing
for the appellant has referred to the case of "Krishna Kumari v. Ashwani
Kumar" which was considering the six months waiving period under
section 13-B(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, wherein it has been held as
under:
"27. Further, while accepting such petitions Courts should
be vigilant to see that parties have consented freely for
mutual divorce. They have not acted under some duress,
misrepresentation, force or fraud. In the backdrop of Indian
Society, which is virtually male dominated, the woman folk
is likely to be a prey to all these tactics. But in this case there
is no such possibility. The parties were married on
September 27, 1990. They lived together only upto
November 26, 1990. Since then they are living apart. Wife
filed petition Under Section 13 of the Act on May 22, 1992.
She lodged a complaint under Sections 406/408-A IPC
against the husband and she has now accepted Rs.25,000/-
from her husband in full and final settlement of all her
claims and has also agreed that her complaint be quashed.
Therefore, in my considered view the parties have given
their consent freely for obtaining divorce by mutual
consent. Thus it is apparent that there is no violation of the
sprit of the statute when marital discord has otherwise been
brought to surface in matrimonial and criminal courts both,
leaving out any chance of collusion between the parties so
as to play a fraud on the statute. Collusion being out of
picture and litigation between the parties having remained
rife for more than four years, justifies the grant of divorce to
the parties under the spirit of Section 13-B of the Act,
though not in accordance with its letter. No court can shut
its eyes to the reality of the situation. These two human-
beings have wrecked their lives in mutual acrimony. At
both the levels i.e. in the matrimonial Court as well as in
this Court efforts for reconciliation were made, but they
remained abortive. During those conciliation proceeding,
the parties arrived at this solution with a view to resettle
their lives. Now they look to the Court to grant them relief
Under these circumstances, if they are made to wait for six
months, that will defeat the spirit of the provision itself.
This period of six months is provided to give a chance to
the parties for reconciliation, but in this case that chance is
lost for they themselves have filed such a petition as their
desperate last move to seek peace and harmony in life. In
my considered view, it should not be denied to them. Now
if they want to break their matrimonial bond right now,
they should be allowed to do so.
28. Thus, considering all the facts and circumstances of the
case, the petition is allowed. Period of six months is waived
and a decree of divorce on the basis of mutual consent is
granted to the parties with immediate effect. A copy of the
decree be furnished to both the parties free of costs."
8. Factual aspects of the case reveal that the marriage of the
appellant and the respondent was solemnized on 08.12.2003 as per
Hindu rites and customs and it has been alleged that since 28.08.2004
both the parties are living separately and as would appear from the
joint compromise petition and the application preferred under section
13B of the Hindu Marriage Act that there is no possibility of resurrecting
the marital life of the appellant and the respondent. Considering the
facts and circumstances of the case, statutory period of six months is
waived.
9. Considering the fact that the matter has been compromised
between the parties which has led to an application preferred under
section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act for dissolution of the marriage
by mutual consent and on an overall conspectus of the entire facts and
circumstances of the case, IA No. 900 of 2025 stands allowed and decree
of divorce on the basis of mutual consent is granted to the parties with
immediate effect. A copy of the decree be furnished to both the parties
free of costs.
10. Consequently, F.A. No. 90 of 2020 stands disposed of.
11. Pending IA, if any, stands closed.
(RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, J.)
S.B. (ARUN KUMAR RAI, J.)
