Judgment:
V.K. Jhanji, J.
1. This order of mine will dispose of F.A.O. No 123-M of 1989 as well as F.A.O. No. 124-M of 1989.
2. Appellant-wife filed a petition for nullity of Marriage and in the alternative dissolution of marriage under Sections 12(1)(c) and 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act (for short the 'Act'). Husband filed a petition under Section 9 of the Act. Both these petition were tried together by the District Judge, Ropar, who vide order dated 24-5-1989 dismissed the petition filed by the wife under Secs. 12(1)(c) and 13 of the Act and allowed the petition under Section 9 of the Act filed by the husband. Aggrieved against the said order, wife has come up to this Court in two appeals, i.e. F.A.O. No. 123-M of 1989 and F.A.O. No. 124-M of 1980.
3. During the pendency of the appeals in this Court, parties have filed a petition under Section 13(b) of the Act for dissolution of Marriage by mutual consent. Application has also been filed under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code for the amendment of the petition under Sections 12(1)(c) and 13 of the Act. Application is taken on the record and the same is allowed.
4. Consequently, petition under Sections 12(1)(c) and 13 of the Act is converted into one under Section 13(b) of the Act. Parties were married on 12-3-1986 and they have been living separately for the last more than five years.
5. I have gone through the entire case with the help of learned Counsel for the parties and I am satisfied that the parties have been living separately for the last more than five years and they have not been able to live together. They have further mutually agreed that the marriage be dissolved. Accordingly, petition for dissolution for marriage by mutual consent under Sections 13(b) of the Act is allowed and the marriage between the parties is dissolved by way of mutual consent within the meaning of Section 13(b) of the Act. Surinder Kumar Sharma, husband has paid a sum of Rs. 25,000/- i.e. Rs. 20,000/- by way of draft and Rs. 5.000/- in cash to wife, Shashi Tyagi in Court today in full and final settlement of the demand of the wife towards the dowry as well as maintenance. Shashi Tyagi, wife shall not be entitled to any other maintenance or any other amount in lieu of dowry which may have been given by her parents at the time of marriage.
6. In view of the fact that the marriage between the parties has been dissolved by mutual consent and the parties have agreed not to our sue the disoutes pending between them and have them settled amicably. Counsel for the wife has agreed not to pursue the case in F.I.R. No. 105 dated 21-10-1987 P.S. Mohali pending in the Court of Sub Judge 1st Class Kharar. In view of this, the Court trying this case shall take a sympathetic view in the matter Mr. Pardeen Kumar Punj son of Y.K. Punj. brother-in-law of Surinder Kumar, husband is present in Court. Mr. K.S. Dadwal, Advocate identifies him. Mr. Punj admits that the allegations levelled by him in the case, F.I R No. 252 dated 1-7-1992, P.S. Mandir Marg, New Delhi against Mahesh Chander Tyagi, A jay Tyagi, Dev Raj Tyagi, Shashi Tyagi, Rakesh Tyagi and Punam Tyagi were made due to some misunderstanding, He has further undertaken not to pursue the said F.I.R. against the aforesaid persons. He has filed an affidavit duly sworn in this regard.
7. Consequently, F.A.O. No. 123-M of 1989 and F.A.O. No. 124-M of 1989 as well as application for mutual divorce are disposed of accordingly. No costs. However, the undertaking given by Mr. Pardeep Kumar Punj in this Court as well as the statement made in affidavit shall not be taken to have been made against other persons mentioned or not mentioned in the said E.I.R.