Parties Name v. Anju Garg

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jasbir Singh Hon'ble Mr. Justice Augustine George Masih. PRESENT: Mr. S.K.Garg Narwana, Advocate, for the appellant. JASBIR SINGH, J. (oral) JUDGMENT This appeal has been filed against the judgment dated September 28, 2010, passed by the District Judge , Family Court, Hisar, dismissing application of the appellant filed under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (in short the Act). As per facts on record, appellant and respondent filed a joint application under Section 13-B of the Act on August 19, 2009. Their statements were recorded and the matter was adjourned to February 20,

#2010. FAO NO. 6836 OF 2010 -2- It is not in dispute that marriage between the parties was solemnised on May 29, 2001, according to Hindu rites and no child was born out of the wed-lock. When the matter came up for hearing on February 20, 2010, respondent – wife made a statement that she is not willing to get the marriage dissolved as was earlier suggested by moving an application under Section 13-B of the Act. The Court below, taking note of this fact, has observed as under: “20. It is pertinent to mention here that the present petition was filed under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act for divorce by mutual consent. Statement of both the parties was recorded on 19.08.2009 and thereafter the case was fixed for second motion after expiry of period of six months which is mandatory period for 20.2.2010. On 20.2.2010, petitioner No. 1 Anju Garg appeared and she made statement that she is not willing to dissolve the marriage. She further stated that she has no objection if Rs. 10,00,000/-along with interest deposited with State Bank of India, Mini Secretariat, Hisar in the shape of FDR be released in favour of petitioner No. 2 Anil Garg. Statement of petitioner No. 2 Anil Garg also recorded. He stated that they did not reside together since 19.08.2009 and he is willing to get a decree of divorce under Section 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act. It is pertinent to mention here that in the given circumstances, the consent was not given by Anju Garg, petitioner No. 1 for obtaining divorce on 20.02.2010 and in the given circumstances, it is clear that the mutual consent could FAO NO. 6836 OF 2010 -3- not be continued till the decree of divorce is passed.” The Court has rightly held that the divorce under Section 13-B of the Act cannot be granted without getting consent of the respondent – wife, which she is free to withdraw at any time before her second statement is recorded. We are of the view that the opinion expressed is perfectly justified as the order passed is as per provisions of Section 13-B of the Act itself. No case is made out for interference. Dismissed. ( JASBIR SINGH ) JUDGE (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) JUDGE November 17 , 2010. DKC