PARESHNATH MISHRA Vs. ROJALINI PATI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr. Pradhan, learned advocate appears on behalf of appellant-husband and with reference to our order dtd. 5/1/2024 hands up demand draft no. 814920 dtd. 9/1/2024 issued by State Bank of India in favour of respondent-wife for ?7,00,000/-. He also hands up term deposit advice in lieu of term deposit receipt in respect of account no.42672861917 issued by State Bank of India acknowledging deposit of ?6,50,000/- in favour of Priyal Priyadarshini Mishra on nomination of respondent-wife for term of two years and eleven months, for ultimate maturity as per our said order dtd. 5/1/2024.

(2.) Mr. Mishra, learned advocate appears on behalf of respondent-wife and submits, his client is still agreeable to accept and he has been instructed to accept the instruments in settlement of permanent alimony and maintenance, respectively in respect of his client and the daughter.

(3.) The instruments will remain in custody of Court for parties to forthwith apply for divorce on mutual consent under Sec. 13-B in Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Second motion may also be made for waiver of the statutory period. In this context reference may be made is permissible as declared by the Supreme Court in Amardeep Singh v. Harveen Kaur, reported in (2017) 8 SCC 746, paragraphs 17 and 18. We observe further that the family Court need not detain itself in discharging duty for reconciliation because parties have already agreed.