Suresh Kumar Batra Vs. Varsha Batra

.....or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a single judge of a high court, no further appeal shall lie. even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under section 2(9) means a statement given by a judge on the grounds of a decree or order. thus the contention that against an order passed by a single judge in an appeal filed under section 104 c.p.c., a further appeal lies to a division bench cannot be accepted. the newly incorporated section 100a in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a single judge to a division bench notwithstanding anything contained in the letters patent. the letters patent which provides for further appeal to a division bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a single judge. it has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an appeal to the high court. it has not made any provision for filing appeal to a division bench against the judgment or decree or order of a single judge. no letters patent appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a single judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a special act. sections 100-a [as inserted by act 22 of 2002] & 104:[dr. b.s. chauhan, cj, l. mohapatra & a.s. naidu, jj] writ appeal held, a writ appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by single judge in a writ petition filed under article 226 of the constitution of india. in a writ application filed under articles 226 and 227 of constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under article 226, a writ appeal will lie. but, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a single judge in exercising powers of superintendence under article 227 of the constitution. - 5...........judge, roper, by judgment and decree dated june 13, 1988. aggrieved thereby the appellant husband has filed the present appeal being f.a.o. no. 87-m of 1988.2. at the hearing, learned counsel for the parties presented before me a petition under section 13b of the act seeking a decree of divorce by mutual consent. along with the petition, a civil misc. application was also filed paying that condition of keeping the petition, for grant of a decree of divorce by mutual consent pending for a period of six months may be waived as contemplated by section 13b(2) of the act having regard to the peculiar acts and circumstances of the present case. parties were present during the course of hearing and their statements were recorded separately.3. from the statements of the parties, it is clear that the parties have not been able to live together for the last about nine years and it is now not possible for them to live together as husband and wife. it is further clear from their statements that they have decided to seek a decree of divorce by mutual consent.4. the appellant has further stated that he has no objection if the custody of the minor daughter miss rabia aged about 10 years is allowed to remain with the mother, varsha, respondent herein. respondent varsha has stated that her minor daughter is in her custody and she is getting education.5. thus, after going through the record and the statements of the parties, i am satisfied that, it is a marriage which cannot work. the parties are young and each one of them has a chance to re-arrange his or her life, if freed from the shackles of the present matrimonial bond. their statements made in court today justify that the period of six months between the application for divorce by mutual consent and the ultimate, grant be waived. in these circumstances, the petition under section 13b of the act seeking decree of divorce by mutual consent succeeds and is accepted and marriage between the parties is dissolved by a decree of.....