Major (Retd) Devashish Chakravarty v. Smt.Chinmoyee Chakravarty
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 30 Jan 2008
- Bench
- S C DHARMADHIKARI
Provisions considered
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
- Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 ss. 13(i)(a), 13(i)(b)
Key paragraphs
- Para 77. Accordingly, after the matter was heard at some length, it is agreed between the parties that : (a) Tthat the petitioner-husband shall deposit in the State Bank of India, branch at Badlapur or Ambernath a sum of Rs.10 lacs, which sum shall be invested…
- Para 1313. Needless to state, that in case of default the impugned orders are confirmed, the Writ Petition stands dismissed, so also, the Civil Court can proceed with the Marriage Petition.
Judgment
This Writ petition is directed against an order passed by the District Judge-4 Thane dated
8.8.2007 in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 59 of 2007 and the judgment and order dated 29.01.2007 passed below Exhibit-53 in Marriage Petition No. 112 of 2003. The Marriage Petition is pending before the Learned Civil Judge Senior Division, Thane.
The Marriage petition seeks a Decree of dissolution of marriage between the petitioner husband and the :2::2::2: respondent wife. The petitioner has invoked Section 13(i)(a) and Section 13(i)(b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
The order of the District judge is upon an Appeal
which is directed against the order of the trial Court. The Trial Court held that the petitioner husband has failed to comply with the order passed with regard to interim alimony to the wife and therefore the Marriage Petition has been dismissed for non-compliance with the order of the Trial Court. Challenging that order the Appeal was filed and the District judge has partly allowed the Appeal. However, while partly allowing the Appeal, the Learned District Judge has stated that the petition of the husband will be restored to the file , but, it will not be heard until the petitioner husband complies with the order dated 28.01.2005 and
29.01.2007.
When this matter was placed before me for admission, after hearing Mr.Malpathak appearing for the petitioner husband, I had recorded the statement on
12.12.2007, that without prejudice to the rights and :3::3::3: contentions of the petitioner husband, he would deposit Rs.55,000/- within two weeks from 12.12.2007. The petitioner husband has complied with this order and has deposited Rs.55,000/- which sum is withdrawn by respondent no.5. On account of this statement, coercive proceedings were stayed.
The matter was listed before me for admission after the wife has appeared through Shri. G.N.Salunke.
The matter was adjourned till today and placed in my chambers because both sides desired to arrive at a settlement.
Accordingly, after the matter was heard at some length, it is agreed between the parties that : (a) Tthat the petitioner-husband shall deposit in the State Bank of India, branch at Badlapur or Ambernath a sum of Rs.10 lacs, which sum shall be invested in Fixed Deposit by the said branch and deposit to be made in the name of minors Shubhojit and Shreya. :4::4::4: (b) The amount shall remain invested for a period of five years and to be renewed after five years. The respondent-wife can only withdraw the interest accrued thereon, monthly for the purposes of education, clothing and health requirement of the minors. Thus, the Account to be operated for the benefit of the Minors. (c) The said sum shall remain invested for the above period and renewed, if necessary, for the further periods as per the directions of the Civil court at Thane.
The petitioner-husband makes a statement before me, that he would deposit a sum of Rs.5 lacs initially, within a period of four weeks from today and the balance sum of Rs.5 lacs within a period of 8 weeks thereafter. Thus, there can be two Fixed Deposit Receipts.
This sum shall be accepted in full and final :5::5::5: settlement of all claims and upon deposit of the sum of Rs.10 lacs, the Trial Court to proceed and convert the pending petition into a petition for Decree of Divorce by mutual consent and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. The Trial Court to pass appropriate orders within a period of four weeks after the above amount is paid and petition is converted.
10 Petitioner husband has handed over post dated cheques of Rs.5,000/- each for the next three moths maintenance. It is agreed that the monthly maintenance may not be paid or deposited thereafter. It is agreed between the parties that the respondent-wife shall retain custody of the minors. However, the petitioner-husband shall have access to the children/minors once a week on every Thursday. The minors will be brought by the respondent-wife to a Resort, namely, Rainy Resort at Badlapur at 3.00 p.m. and it is further agreed that the petitioner/husband/father would hand over the minors by leaving them to the residential place of the petitioner-wife or Rainy Resort by 7.00 p.m. The Access is granted from Thursday, 7th February, 2008 and :6::6::6: Every Thursday thereafter. Thus, access is once a week, every Thursday.
Insofar as, access during the school vacations of the minors are concerned, the petitioner is at liberty to apply to the Trial Court for access as and when the school closes for vacations.
Upon the payment of Rs.10 lacs in the manner stipulated above, the parties shall withdraw all allegations made against each other, so also, the pending proceedings, Civil/Criminal. The proceedings in Marriage Petition No.112 of 2003 shall remain stayed to enable the petitioner to comply with the statements recorded above.
Needless to state, that in case of default the impugned orders are confirmed, the Writ Petition stands dismissed, so also, the Civil Court can proceed with the Marriage Petition.
This Writ Petition is accordingly disposed off. Liberty to apply. :7::7::7: . All concerned to act on authenticated copy of this order. *******
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — ss. 13(i)(a), 13(i)(b).
Which court decided this case, and when?
Bombay High Court, on 30 Jan 2008. The bench was S C DHARMADHIKARI.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.