✦ Punjab & Haryana High Court · 06 Aug 2025

At Chandigarh v. Khushbu

Fao No. 4328 of 2025GURVINDER SINGH GILL, DEEPINDER SINGH NALWA2 min read

Case at a glance

Provisions considered

Key paragraphs

  • Para 77. We do not find any infirmity in the impugned order. Finding no merit in the appeal, the same is hereby dismissed.

Judgment

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURVINDER SINGH GILL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPINDER SINGH NALWA Present:- Mr. Kamal Kumar Mor, Advocate, for the appellant. ***** GURVINDER SINGH GILL , J . (Oral)

1.

The appellant assails order dated 28.03.2025 vide which a petition filed by him as well as his wife (respondent) under the provisions of Section 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 has been dismissed.

2.

In the instant case, while the appellant had paid an amount of Rs.3 lakhs to the respondent at the time of recording statements in the first motion, but subsequently when the matter was taken up for recording statements on the second motion, respondent/wife withdrew her consent. It may here be mentioned that the remaining agreed amount of Rs.4,50,000/- was also yet to be paid.

3.

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that once the statements in the first motion have been recorded and the appellant had also made part payment, the respondent/wife could not withdraw her consent and that too when she has not even returned the amount in question.

4.

We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant. MOHAN SINGH 2025.08.07 11:41 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh FAO-4328-2025 (O&M) - 2 -

5.

The provisions for grant of divorce by mutual consent proceeds on the premises of two consenting parties i.e. the husband and wife. It is for this very purpose that the law provides that a cooling period of six months be afforded to the parties after recording statements at the time of first motion so as to enable them to ponder and think over the matter before making a final statement. The respondent having chosen to withdraw her consent, she cannot be forced to give her consent.

6.

It needs to be mentioned that the Family Court while declining the petition has categorically observed that the appellant would be at liberty to take necessary steps for recovery of amount of Rs.3 lakhs, which had been paid at the time of recording statements at the time of first motion.

7.

We do not find any infirmity in the impugned order. Finding no merit in the appeal, the same is hereby dismissed.

8.

Needless to mention that the appellant would be at liberty to file a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act and/or to file a fresh petition under Section 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act, if at any later stage both the parties are consenting for a divorce by way of mutual consent. ( GURVINDER SINGH GILL ) JUDGE

06.08.2025 ( DEEPINDER SINGH NALWA ) JUDGE Whether speaking /reasoned Whether Reportable Yes / No Yes / No MOHAN SINGH 2025.08.07 11:41 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh

Questions this judgment answers

Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — s. 13.

Which court decided this case, and when?

Punjab & Haryana High Court, on 06 Aug 2025. The bench was GURVINDER SINGH GILL, DEEPINDER SINGH NALWA.

Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case

No treatment data yet for this judgment in the Courts & Cases corpus.

Absence of data is not a statement about the judgment’s standing — the corpus covers only judgments we index and link with cited evidence.

Why is this linked?

This is the original judgment text, reproduced from the public court record. Always verify it against the official record before relying on it in a filing — check it on Punjab & Haryana High Court or eCourts case status (search case no. Fao No. 4328 of 2025). ← Search more judgments