Ajay Pram Vs. Smt. Abha Pram

Ajay Pram vs Smt. Abha Pram

Type Court Judgment Court Rajasthan Decided Mar 14, 2005

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/759331

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/759331
Court: Rajasthan High Court
Judge: S.K. Keshote and; Ajay Rastogi, JJ.
Decided On: Mar 14, 2005
Case Number: D.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 2469 of 2004
Subject: Family

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

- Section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007, Rule 12 & 98 & Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, Section 2(h): [Altamas Kabir & Cyriac Joseph, JJ] Determination as to Juvenile - Appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged oc...

Key legal issue: Family
Acts & sections: Indian Divorce Act, 1869 - Sections 10A, 10, 14 and 36; Indian Divorce (Amendment) Act, 2001; Indian Divorce Rules; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) - Sections 151

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Ajay Pram

Advocate R.S. Rathore, Adv.

Respondent

Smt. Abha Pram

Advocate Reasham Bhargava, Adv.

Legal References

Acts: Indian Divorce Act, 1869 - Sections 10A, 10, 14 and 36; Indian Divorce (Amendment) Act, 2001; Indian Divorce Rules; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) - Sections 151
Reported In: RLW2005(3)Raj2022

Excerpt

- section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & juvenile justice (care and protection of children) rules, 2007, rule 12 & 98 & juvenile justice act, 1986, section 2(h): [altamas kabir & cyriac joseph, jj] determination as to juvenile - appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 act was in force and under clause (h) of section 2 a juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years - it is with the enactment of the juvenile justice act, 2000, that in section 2(k) a juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years of a ge which was given prospective prospect - appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the juvenile justice act, 2000, came into force - juvenile act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by rule 12 of juvenile justice rule, 2007 - as such, accused has to be treated as juvenile under the said act. - 8. having gone through the material available on the record we are satisfied that there is no coercion or mala fide between the parties in seeking the divorce by mutual consent......the parties have been attested by the deputy registrar (judicial) under the directions of the court.4. section 10a of the act, 1869 makes a provision for dissolution of marriage by mutual consent. it provides that subject to the provisions of the act and the rules framed thereunder, a petition for dissolution of marriage may be presented to the district court by both the parties to the marriage together whether such marriage was solemnized before and after commencement of the indian divorce (amendment) act, 2001 on the ground that they have been living separately for a period of two years or more, that they have not been able to live together and they have mutually agreed that the marriage should be dissolved.5. the parties were called for reconciliation on 7th of february, 2005. we talked to both of them but either of them was not ready to live together. the matter was taken up on 14th of february, 2005 and then on 28.2.2005 but either of the parties was not agreed to live together. on 28.2.2005 before the court they made a statement that they have entered into the compromise and decided to get their marriage dissolved by a decree of divorce by mutual consent and this application has been filed.6. the marriage of the appellant husband and the respondent wife was solemnized on 5.11.99 as per the christian customs and rites at ajmer. the appellant husband, on 25.2.2003, moved a petition under section 10(u)(10) read with section 14 of the act, 1869 before the family court, no. 1, jaipur city, jaipur; the matter is pending.7. the family court passed the order of maintenance allowance in favour of the wife respondent and that has been challenged in this appeal. the appellant husband and the respondent wife are living separately for a period of more than two years. both stated on oath that there had been no cohabitation between them for a period of two years.8. having gone through the material available on the record we are satisfied that there is no coercion or mala.....

Full Judgment

S.K. Keshote, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire material available on the record.

2. This appeal under Section 36 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 (hereinafter shall be referred to as 'the Act, 1869') read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, is directed against the order, dated 24.8.2004 of the learned Family Court No. 1, Jaipur. Under the impugned order the learned Family Court allowed the application filed by the respondent wife and directed to husband to pay to her Rs. 1000/- per month maintenance allowance; Rs. 1000/- for litigation expenses and Rs. 300/- for expenses towards her appearance in the court for each date to and fro Ajmer-Jaipur with one assistant.

3. During the pendency of the appeal the parties have settled their dispute and agreed to get their marriage dissolved by a decree of divorce by mutual consent; accordingly they filed a joint application under Section 10A of the Act, 1869. The compromise entered into between the parties have been attested by the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) under the directions of the Court.

4. Section 10A of the Act, 1869 makes a provision for dissolution of marriage by mutual consent. It provides that subject to the provisions of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder, a petition for dissolution of marriage may be presented to the District Court by both the parties to the marriage together whether such marriage was solemnized before and after commencement of the Indian Divorce (Amendment) Act, 2001 on the ground that they have been living separately for a period of two years or more, that they have not been able to live together and they have mutually agreed that the marriage should be dissolved.

5. The parties were called for reconciliation on 7th of February, 2005. We talked to both of them but either of them was not ready to live together. The matter was taken up on 14th of February, 2005 and then on 28.2.2005 but either of the parties was not agreed to live together. On 28.2.2005 before the court they made a statement that they have entered into the compromise and decided to get their marriage dissolved by a decree of divorce by mutual consent and this application has been filed.

6. The marriage of the appellant husband and the respondent wife was solemnized on 5.11.99 as per the Christian customs and rites at Ajmer. The appellant husband, on 25.2.2003, moved a petition under Section 10(u)(10) read with Section 14 of the Act, 1869 before the Family Court, No. 1, Jaipur City, Jaipur; the matter is pending.

7. The Family Court passed the order of maintenance allowance in favour of the wife respondent and that has been challenged in this appeal. The appellant husband and the respondent wife are living separately for a period of more than two years. Both stated on oath that there had been no cohabitation between them for a period of two years.

8. Having gone through the material available on the record we are satisfied that there is no coercion or mala fide between the parties in seeking the divorce by mutual consent. The relation between the parties have become so strained that it is not possible for both of them to live together. The averments made in the petition appear to be true and correct and the prayer made by them deserves to be granted.

9. Accordingly the application filed by the parties under Section 10A of the Act, 1869 is allowed; their marriage solemnized on 5.11.1999 at Ajmer is dissolved by a decree of divorce by mutual consent. Subject to the terms and conditions agreed upon by them in the application aforesaid.

10. The learned Trial Court is directed to draw a decree of divorce accordingly in the matter.

11. In view of this order passed, the appeal and the stay application, filed therewith, also stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

Same Court & Year Rajasthan · 2005 Same Parties Ajay Pram vs Smt. Abha Pram Same Subject Family Same Judge S.K. Keshote and; Ajay Rastogi, JJ. Acts & Sections Indian Divorce Act, 1869 - Sections 10A, 10, 14 and 36; India...

Family