PARKASH KAUR Vs. BIKRAMJIT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The parties were married on 7-6-1978 and out of the wedlock a female child was born on 25th March, 1979. After some time differences occurred between the parties. On 26-11-1984 a joint petition for divorce duly signed by the parties was filed before the District Court under S.13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short 'the Act'). That petition came up for hearing before the Additional District Judge on 28-11-1984 who adjourned the hearing to 30th May, 1985 and then to 27th August, 1985. On 27th August, 1985 the wife made a statement before the Court that she did not want divorce and her signatures were obtained on the joint divorce petition by coercion and undue influence. The trial Court framed the issue in regard to the aforesaid matter and came to the conclusion that she failed to prove if coercion or undue influence was exercised on her while obtaining her consent for the joint divorce petition.

(2.) The withdrawal of the consent of the wife later on vide her statement dated 27th August, 1985, was considered by the Court below to be of no consequence in view of Nachhattar Singh v. Harcharan Kaur, AIR 1986 Punj and Har 201 Meena Dutta v. Anirudh Dutta, (1985) 1 Hindu LR 280, single Bench judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court and Jayashree Ramesh v. Ramesh Bhikaji, AIR 1984 Bom 302, because in the aforesaid three decisions it was held that it is not open to a party to withdraw the consent as S.13-B of the Act does not envisage withdrawal of consent by one party and the petition could be dismissed as withdrawn only if both the parties had sought withdrawal. Reference was made to my judgment in Gurdip Singh Johar v. Kulwant Kaur, (1985) 1 Hindu LR 503, which took the contrary view but in view of the aforesaid three judgments the learned Additional District Judge said that my judgment was of no consequence. By order dated 3-3-1986 the Court below granted divorce to the husband. This is wife's second appeal.

(3.) During the pendency of the appeal the conflict of view was noticed in Harcharan Kaur v. Nachattar Singh FAO No. 20-M of 1986 : (Reported in AIR 1988 Punj and Har 27), and the matter was admitted to DB. The Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 22-5-1987 approved my view and overruled the decision of Pritpal Singh J. in the aforesaid Nachhattar Singh's case. The Division Bench did not agree with the view taken by the Bombay and Madhya Pradesh High Courts but agreed with the view taken by the Rajasthan High Court in Santosh Kumari v. Virendra Kumar, (1986) 1 Hindu LR 620.