SOMESH KUMAR GUPTA Vs. SAPNA GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by the husband challenges an order dated 24.7.2012 passed under section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (in short "the Act") whereby the petition for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce by mutual consent, was dismissed. The case of the appellant-husband as put forth in the instant appeal is that the marriage between the parties was solemnized on 11.6.1989 according to Hindu rites and rituals at Jabalpur (Madhya Pradesh). Out of the said wedlock, two children, namely, Shruti Gupta aged about 21 years and Samarth Gupta, aged about 15 years were born. Due to their temperamental differences, the parties decided to dissolve the marriage by mutual consent. They entered into a compromise and as per the compromise, the appellant-husband had to pay a sum of Rs. 1.80 crores as full and final settlement towards alimony to the respondent-wife for all her past, present and future maintenance. In view of the compromise arrived at between the parties, a joint petition under Section 13B of the Act was filed for dissolution of the marriage between the parties by mutual consent. Further, the first motion statement of the respondent-wife as required under Section 13B of the Act was recorded. On 16.4.2012, the respondent-wife did not agree for dissolution of marriage by mutual consent and prayed for time to get recorded the second motion statement and the case was adjourned from time to time. Accordingly, the respondent-wife made a statement to the effect that she did not want her marriage with the petitioner to be dissolved by decree of divorce by mutual consent, the petition under Section 13B of the Act filed by the husband was dismissed by the Family Court, Gurgaon vide order dated 24.7.2012. Hence, the present appeal.

(2.) A perusal of order dated 12.3.2013 passed by this Court shows that learned counsel for the appellant had taken time to establish that the present appeal was maintainable under the Act.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the parties have compromised the matrimonial dispute and in terms thereof, a sum of Rs. 1.80 crores had been paid to the respondent-wife. It was on that basis that the respondent-wife had made a statement at the first motion under Section 13B of the Act. However, after having received the aforesaid amount, she resiled from her earlier consent and did not agree for divorce by mutual consent under Section 13B of the Act. It was on this premise that the petition was dismissed. Support was gathered from the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Anil Kumar Jain v. Maya Jain,, 2010 AIR(SC) 229and the judgment of Rajasthan High Court in Anil Khatwani v. Nistha Khatwani, 2012 AIR(Raj) 2125 Further, learned counsel submitted that the petition was filed before the Family Court and an appeal was maintainable under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 (for brevity, "1984 Act").