PRABHA RAJPUT Vs. DELHI ADMINISTRATION NCT OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal under section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') filed by the appellants challenging the order dated 31st October, 2011 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge whereby the joint petition of the parties under section 13-B(1) of the Act has been rejected.

(2.) A joint petition under section 13-B(1) of the Act was filed by the appellants stating therein that their marriage was solemnized on 8 th November, 1981 in Delhi in accordance with Hindu customary rites and ceremonies. Out of their wedlock, two sons were born, now aged about 29 years and 27 years and are living with their father i.e., appellant no.2. It is stated that due to temperamental differences, they have been living separately since March, 1998 and have not resumed cohabitation and there is no possibility of living together as husband and wife. They have prayed for dissolution of marriage by decree of divorce by mutual consent. It is stated in the petition that they have settled their disputes regarding istridhan, maintenance and permanent alimony and have entered into deed of compromise dated 12.9.2011 whereby appellant no.2/husband has agreed to pay Rs.8 lacs to appellant no.1/wife. Out of which Rs.2 lacs would be paid by appellant no.2/husband at the time of making statement in the first motion petition. Remaining amount of Rs.six lacs would be paid at the time of making statements in the second motion petition u/s 13B(2) of the Act. A copy of settlement dated 12.9.2011 was also attached with the petition u/s 13-B(1) of the Act. Their joint statement on oath was recorded by the learned ADJ on 22.10.2011.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the appellants has contended that there is no collusion between the parties as is observed in the impugned order. The petition under section 13-B(1) of the Act was not presented in collusion. Their joint statements on oath was also recorded. There is no material on record by which it can be said that there is collusion between the parties. It is further stated that parties are living separately for the past 15 years. There is no cohabitation between them since then. They are not going to defraud any one, as is observed in the impugned order, as such impugned order is illegal.