NEETU Vs. MOHAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 14.02.2019 by which petition filed by the appellant along with the respondent under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short 'the Act') for seeking dissolution of their marriage by way of mutual consent has been allowed.

(2.) In brief, the facts are that the status of the appellant was of a widow at the time of her marriage whereas the status of the respondent was of a bachelor. The appellant was initially married with Santokh Singh son of Bimla Devi and Mahinder Singh as per Hindu rites and ceremonies. Out of the said wedlock, she had two children, namely, Parminder Singh (son) born on 13.07.2010 and Kajal (daughter) born on 16.03.2014. Her previous husband Santokh Singh died due to ailment on 15.01.2016. After his death, the appellant got married with the respondent, who is the real brother of Bimla (mother in law of the appellant). They performed their marriage at Mansa Devi Temple, Panchkula on 19.01.2017 and lived as husband and wife in House No. 440, Near Dera Sahib Gurudwara, Panditon Wali Gali, Manimajra, Chandigarh till December, 2018 and thereafter shifted to house No. 864, Tarkhana Wala Mohalla, Manimajra, Chandigarh and resided there till 16.02.2019. It is alleged that the respondent, by playing fraud upon the appellant, got her signatures on a petition, prepared under Section 13-B of the Act, on the pretext that the marriage solemnized by them in the temple has to be necessarily got registered in the Court. It is alleged that the appellant had signed the said petition and also signed the statements suffered by her at the first and second motion stage before the Court. However, she was shocked when the respondent had announced on 16.02.2019 that he has obtained a decree of divorce from her. She engaged Jitender Nagpal, Advocate to make an inquiry about the alleged pronouncement of the respondent that he had got a decree of divorce under Section 13-B of the Act and came to know that the same has been allowed by the ADJ, Chandigarh on 14.02.2019. Thereafter, she applied for the certified copy of the said order and filed the present appeal.

(3.) The judgment and decree of the trial Court has been challenged by the appellant, inter alia, on the ground that the decree obtained by the respondent is an act of fraud and that the learned Court below has not recorded its satisfaction in terms of Section 13-B(2) while passing the order. Counsel for the appellant has submitted that the marriage of the parties was solemnized on 19.01.2017 and they lived as husband and wife till 16.02.2019 whereas the petition under Section 13-B of the Act was filed on 03.05.2018. It is further submitted that the first motion stage statement was recorded before the learned Court below on 03.05.2018 itself and thereafter, the Court had granted them the cooling off period of six months for the purpose of recording the statement at the second motion stage which in fact was recorded on 14.02.2019 and the decree was passed on the same date. Counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant has filed an application with this appeal bearing CM No. 8193-C-2019 under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (for short 'CPC') for seeking permission of this Court to lead additional evidence by photographs to show that both the appellant and respondent were together on 27.10.2018 at the time of Karwa Chauth and on 22.12.2018 at the time of the respondent's birthday. The said evidence is sought to be brought on record in order to challenge the decree obtained under Section 13-B of the Act, on the ground that as per Section 13-B(1) of the Act a petition for seeking dissolution of marriage by way of mutual consent could be filed only if both the parties have lived separately for a period of one year or more and that they have not been able to live together and they have mutually agreed that the marriage should be dissolved. At the time of preliminary hearing on 08.04.2019, the appellant was asked to refer to law as to how an appeal under Section 28 of the Act would be maintainable against the decree suffered by way of mutual consent and in this regard Section 96 of the CPC was brought to the notice of the counsel for the appellant.