Judgment:
204 CM No.19603-CII of 2013 in/and -1 - 1- FAO No.M-98 of 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CM No.19603-CII of 2013 in/and FAO No.M-98 of 2012 Date of Decision: 31.3.2014 Baljinder Singh .....Petitioner No.1 and Satinder Kaur alias Satinderjit Kaur …...Petitioner No.2 CORAM: HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE S.S.SARON HON'BLE Ms.JUSTICE NAVITA SINGH -.- Present: Ms.Neha Jain, Advocate for Mr.K.S.Dadwal, Advocate for petitioner No.1 with Baljinder Singh-petitioner No.1 in person.
Mr.Vikram Anand, Advocate for petitioner No.2 with Satinder Kaur-petitioner No.2 in person.
***** S.S.SARON, J.
The statements of the parties have been recorded at the second motion.
Learned counsel for petitioner No.2 submits that in the memo of parties, the name of petitioner No.2 has been written as Satinder Kaur, whereas, it should have been Satinderjit Kaur as she is known by that name in the records.
It is prayed that correction in the memo of parties be made by incorporating the name of petitioner No.2 as Satinder Kaur alias Satinderjit Kaur.
Learned counsel appearing for petitioner No.1 submits that she has no objection to the same.
Accordingly, in the memo of parties, the name of petitioner No.2 be recorded as Satinder Kaur alias Satinderjit Kaur.
Learned counsel for the parties submit that in view of the joint petition filed by the parties, the statements of the parties made at Gaurav Bhardwaj 2014.04.05 10:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court,Chandigarh 204 CM No.19603-CII of 2013 in/and -2 - 2- FAO No.M-98 of 2012 the time of fiRs.motion on 24.9.2013 and recorded at the time of second motion today, besides, the written compromise dated 27.4.2013 (Exhibit C-1).the marriage between the parties be dissolved by a decree of divorce by mutual consent.
We have given our thoughtful consideration to the matter.
The marriage between the parties was solemnized at Jalandhar City by way of Anand Karaj on 04.2.2001.
After marriage, the parties lived and cohabited together at Village Nadalon, Police Station Mehtiana, Tehsil Garhshankar, District Hoshiarpur.
They had a son namely Gurinder Singh, who was born on 14.11.2001.
Due to the matrimonial disputes between the parties, petitioner No.1-Baljinder Singh filed a petition in the District Court at Hoshiarpur seeking dissolution of the marriage between the parties by a decree of divorce in terms of Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 ('Act' for short).The petition filed by petitioner No.1 was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge (Adhoc).Fast Track Court-II, Hoshiarpur on 03.2.2012.
Aggrieved against the same, the petitioner No.1 filed the present appeal (FAO No.M-98 of 2012).During the pendency of the appeal, the parties reached at a settlement and a compromise dated 27.4.2013 (Exhibit C-1) was recorded.
In terms of the settlement, a sum of `28,00,000/- has been paid by petitioner No.1-Baljinder Singh to petitioner No.2-Satinder Kaur alias Satinderjit Kaur.
The latter has accepted the amount towards full and final settlement of her claim in accordance with the compromise (Exhibit C-1).The minor son of the parties shall remain with petitioner No.2.
Both the parties have stated that they shall remain bound and will continue to remain bound by the compromise dated 27.4.2013.
The English translation of the same has been placed on record as Annexure P-1.
Gaurav Bhardwaj 2014.04.05 10:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court,Chandigarh 204 CM No.19603-CII of 2013 in/and -3 - 3- FAO No.M-98 of 2012 Keeping in view the facts and circumstances that the parties have not been able to live together and they have stated that their marriage be dissolved by a decree of divorce by mutual consent, it would, therefore, be just and expedient to allow the joint petition (CM No.19603-CII of 2013) and dissolve the marriage between the parties by a decree of divorce by mutual consent.
Accordingly, the joint petition (CM No.19603-CII of 2013) is allowed and the marriage between the parties is dissolved by a decree of divorce by mutual consent.
Learned counsel for the petitioner No.1 submits that in view of the joint petition being allowed, the appeal filed by petitioner No.1 has been rendered infructuous.
Accordingly, the appeal (FAO No.M-98 of 2012) is dismissed as having been rendered infructuous.
The parties shall bear their own costs.
They shall remain bound by the compromise dated 27.4.2013 (Exhibit C-1).which shall form part of the decree sheet.
The memo of parties be corrected by mentioning the name of petitioner No.2 as Satinder Kaur alias Satinderjit Kaur instead of Satinder Kaur only.
Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
(S.S.SARON) JUDGE (NAVITA SINGH) JUDGE313.2014 G.
Bhardwaj Gaurav Bhardwaj 2014.04.05 10:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court,Chandigarh