PRAG MITTAL Vs. VIKITA MITTAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the order of the Additional District Judge dismissing the petition of the appellant under Section 13 (1) (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act for dissolution of his marriage against his wife, Smt. Vikita Mittal, the appellant has preferred the present appeal.

(2.) Before I deal with the impugned judgment of the Additional District Judge it is relevant to place on record that the marriage was shortlived between the parties. The marriage was solemnished on 12.10.1994 at Delhi and thereafter the parties lived together till 5.6.1995, i.e. barely for eight months. Ms. Gita Mittal, learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the petition for divorce was filed by the petitioner in spite of numerous notices issued to the respondent, respondent chose to remain absent from the proceedings. However, with the intervention of some friends and relalives, the articles of dowry were returned to the respondent and in token thereof, the respective fathers of the parties signed the document, which is at page 50 of the paper- book. There was a joint bank account at Jamshedpur as the appellant was working at Jamshedpur in the names of both the parties. A sum of Rs. 25,000.00 was also handed over to the respondent as per the receipt at page 64 of the paper-book from the said joint Bank Account in full and Final settlement. It seems that after taking these articles, petition under Section 13-B(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act for mutual consent was drafted and along with the same, an application under Order 6 Rule 17 Civil Procedure Code was filed incorporating the following paragraph :

(3.) Paragraph 6 of the petition under Section 13-B(2) was drafted which was signed by the respondent as petitioner No. 2 and in the said petition, paragraph 6 reads as follows: