BALVINDER SINGH Vs. SUMAN RANI @ SUMAN LATA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the order dated 02.02.2016 by which a petition filed under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 [for short 'the Act'] by the appellant-husband and the respondent-wife together for seeking a decree of divorce by way of mutual consent has been dismissed.

(2.) In brief, the marriage of the appellant with the respondent was solemnized as per Hindu rites and ceremonies on 19.6.1993. They were blessed with three children, namely, Divya Rani (born on 31.1.1998), Vikash Kumar (born in the year 2001) and Kunal Rana (born on 21.6.2009). However, due to matrimonial differences, they started living separately from 15.01.2011. The respondent-wife went to US on 12.10.2014 and residing there since then. Since the issue of incompatibility became severe therefore, they both decided to snap the ties of their marriage by obtaining a decree of divorce by mutual consent and in that process the respondent took an amount of Rs.3,50,000/- from the appellant towards full and final maintenance and permanent alimony and also decided that Divya Rani would stay with the appellant-husband and both the sons Vikash Kumar and Kunal Rana with the respondent-wife. Ultimately, a petition under Section 13-B of the Act was filed on 1.2.2016 by the respondent through her real sister Ravita Rani, who is a resident of Muzaffarnagar, Uttar Pradesh to whom she had given her special power of attorney for this purpose on 23.11.2015. The said petition has been dismissed by the Family Court, Ambala on the ground that the respondent did not come present in person to record her statement in support of the averments made in the petition and that the verification of the petition was defective. The petition was thus dismissed with liberty to the respondent to file a fresh petition subject to just exceptions of law as and when she come to India and get her statement recorded in person before the Court.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that the matter has already been settled between the parties and he had already paid Rs.3,50,000/- to the respondent towards full and final settlement and the parties have already decided about the custody of their children but thepetition filed by them has been dismissed only on the ground that the respondent did not come present for recording her statement at the first motion stage in support of the petition filed by her along with the appellant rather the statement is sought to be recorded on her behalf by her sister who is holding her special power of attorney. It is further submitted that the learned Court below has erred in dismissing the petition on the ground that the verification is defective because it is not pointed out as to what was the defect in the verification.