ANU BHANDARI versus PRADIP BHANDARI on 5 March 2018

576

[2018] 3 S.C.R. 576

SUPREME COURT REPORTS[2018] 3 S.C.R. 576

[2018] 3 S.C.R.

A

ANU BHANDARI

v.

PRADIP BHANDARI

(Civil Appeal No. 2494 of 2018)

BMARCH 05, 2018

[KURIAN JOSEPH ANDMOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, JJ.]

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – s.13B – Divorce by mutualconsent – Appellant and respondent married in 1997, livingCseparately since March 2011, were involved in various civil as wellas criminal litigations – Application filed by parties u/s.13B also –Held: After several efforts for settlement, finally the parties havereached a settlement based on which they have sought divorce bymutual consent – Having regard to the background of the litigationDand long separation between the parties, the parties have taken aconscious decision uninfluenced by any extraneous factor, thereforeit is not necessary for them to wait for a further period of six months– Accordingly, the marriage between appellant and respondent isdissolved by a decree of divorce by mutual consent – In terms of thesettlement, the entire litigations between the parties are also put toEan end – Parties are directed to strictly abide by the terms ofsettlement and are also restrained from instituting any fresh litigationin respect of the subject matter without the leave of Supreme Court.

Family Courts Act, 1984 – s.9 – Duty of Court – Discussed.

FDisposing of the appeals, the Court

HELD: 1.1 The parties have cooperated with the tirelessefforts taken by this Court. It is heartening to note that finallythe parties have reached an amicable settlement. The terms ofsettlement have been stated in detail in Interlocutory ApplicationGNo. 19210 of 2018, based on which the parties have sought fordivorce by mutual consent. The said application shall form partof this Judgment. Having regard to the nature of the cases andhaving due regard to the settlement, it is in the interest of justicethat the entire litigations between the parties are also put an endto, in terms of the settlement.[Paras 3, 4] [578-H; 579-A, C]H

1.2 As all the disputes have been settled, it is not necessaryto relegate the parties for another litigation before the FamilyCourt. The parties are present before Supreme Court. Havingregard to the background of the litigation and having regard tothe long separation between the parties, the parties have takena conscious decision, uninfluenced by any extraneous factor andtherefore, it is not necessary for them to wait for a further periodof six months. Accordingly, the marriage between the appellantand the respondent is dissolved by a decree of divorce by mutualconsent. They are directed to strictly abide by the terms ofsettlement and are also restrained from instituting any freshlitigation in respect of the subject matter without leave of thisCourt. [Paras 9 and 10] [581-D-E]

2. Under Section 9 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, theCourt has a duty to make an endeavour to assist and persuadethe parties in arriving at a settlement. Unlike many otherlegislations, the Legislature has cast a duty on the Court in thatregard. The jurisdiction is not just to decide a dispute, on thecontrary, the court also has to involve itself in the process ofconciliation/mediation between the parties for assisting them notonly to settle the disputes but also to secure speedy settlementof disputes. Such timely intervention of the court will not onlyresolve the disputes and settle the parties peacefully but alsoprevent sporadic litigations between the parties. [Para 14][582-C-D]

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2494of 2018.

From the Judgment and Order dated 11.04.2016 of the High Courtof Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Civil Revision No. 3430 of2014

WITH

Civil Appeal No. 2495 of 2018.

Subramanium Prasad, Sr. Adv., Ms. Varuna Bhandari Gugnani,Bhakti Vardhan Singh, Amit Kumar Pathak, Tushar Thareja, Vikas SinghJangra, Siddhartha Iyer, H. Pal Singh, Ms. Ruchi Kohli, Gaurav Gilhotra,Ms. Rajitha (TH), Surinder Kumar Gupta, Advs. for the appearingparties.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

AThe Judgment of the Court was delivered byKURIAN, J. 1. Leave granted.

2. B

C

D

This is the rich encomium paid to the Court by Master Vibhu, theten year old son of the appellant and respondent. The little one present inCourt today is exuberantly happy and sought liberty to present a handmadeEcard expressing his joy on the settlement of all the disputes and litigationsbetween his mother and father. Their marriage was solemnized as perHindu rites on 18.05.1997. They have two children - Bhuvi, the elderdaughter born on 19.04.1998 and Vibhu, son born on 31.01.2008. Onaccount of marital discord and temperamental differences, they havebeen living separately since March, 2011. They are involved in variousFlitigations, civil as well as criminal. As of now, twenty three cases arepending before various courts – Trial Courts, High Court, this Court andone before the Consumer Forum.

3. There have been several efforts for settlement. Notable amongthem were the intervention of Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Lisa Gill, Judge ofGthe High Court of Punjab and Haryana and Ms. Meenakshi Arora, learnedSenior Counsel, appointed by this Court as Mediator. Having noticedthat all the efforts hitherto have not been fully fruitful, we directed theparties to be present before this Court. The parties have cooperated H

[KURIAN, J.]

with the tireless efforts taken by this Court. It is heartening to note thatfinally the parties have reached an amicable settlement. The terms ofsettlement have been stated in detail in Interlocutory Application No.19210 of 2018, based on which the parties have sought for divorce bymutual consent. The Interlocutory Application No. 19210 of 2018 shallform part of this Judgment.

4. Since the parties have finally resolved their entire disputes,they have prayed for giving a quietus to the entire civil and criminallitigations. Having regard to the nature of the cases and having dueregard to the settlement, we are of the view that it is in the interest ofjustice that the entire litigations between the parties are also put an endto, in terms of the settlement.

5. Accordingly, the following cases are quashed:- A

B

C

Sl. Case No. Court/Authority No.1. Crl. Complaint No.162/14 Judicial Magistrate First Class, Chandigarh 2. Crl. Complaint No.1359/16 Judicial Magistrate First Class, Chandigarh3.PHC 1430/14Judicial Magistrate First Class, Chandigarh4. Untraceable Case 156/2016 Judicial Magistrate First Class, Chandigarh5. Case No.301/13 dated 14.6.13 Judicial Magistrate First Class, Chandigarh6. Case No.464/13 Judicial Magistrate First Class, Chandigarh7. FIR No.0167 dated 25.8.2017 P.S. P.S. City Phagwara City Phagwara D

E

F

G

A6. The following cases are dismissed:-

Sl.No. Case No. Court/Authority 1. Civil Suit No.12905/13 Judicial Magistrate First Class, Chandigarh B2. Crl. Misc. Case No.570 of 2016 Judicial Magistrate First Class, Chandigarh3. Crl. Misc. Case No.305 of 2015 Judicial Magistrate First Class, ChandigarhC4. Execution App. No.543/14 ADJ, Chandigarh 5. Civil Suit No.CS CJ/1072/2016 JMIC, Chandigarh 6. Contested Mutation No.8303 of Sub. Divisional Magistrate DVillage Maloya, Chandigarh (South) U.T. Chandigarh

7. The following cases are disposed of in terms of the Settlement:- nd nd The Consumer Case No.580 of 2014 filed by Ms. Anu Bhandaripending before the Chandigarh District Consumer Disputes RedressalForum-I, UT Chandigarh is dismissed.

8. Civil Appeal No. 2494 of 2018 arises out of Special LeavePetition (Civil) No. 15537 of 2016 filed by Ms. Anu Bhandari beingaggrieved by Order dated 11.04.2016 passed by the High Court of Punjaband Haryana in Civil Revision No. 3430 of 2014. Civil Appeal No. 2495of 2018 arises out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 2343 of 2017 isfiled by Pradip Bhandari being aggrieved by Order dated 11.04.2016passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Civil Revision No.3430 of 2014.

9. What survives is only the Application filed by the parties underSection 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. As we have settled alldisputes, we do not think it necessary to relegate them for another litigationbefore the Family Court. The parties are present before us. Havingregard to the background of the litigation and having regard to the longseparation between the parties, we are convinced that the parties havetaken a conscious decision, uninfluenced by any extraneous factors.Therefore, it is not necessary for them to wait for a further period of sixmonths. Accordingly, the marriage between Anu Bhandari and PradipBhandari is dissolved by a decree of divorce by mutual consent.

10 The appellant and respondent are directed to strictly abide bythe terms of settlement. They are also restrained from instituting anyfresh litigation in respect of the subject matter without leave of this Court.

11. In our Order dated 15.02.2018, the following direction in termsof the statement had been issued:

“2. Mr. Pradip Bhandari is directed to transfer his share inagricultural land situated in Khewat No.159, Khatauni No.176,Khasra 46/2 (20-0) in Village Golpura, Tehsil and District Panchkulaas per Jamabandi for the year 2007-2008 left over land owned ason date by Mr. Pradip Bhandari in favour of Ms. Anu Bhandari/wife, Bhuvi Bhandari and master Vibhu Bhandari.”

12. The Tehsildar concerned is directed to effect the requiredtransfer and change the mutation in respect of the property referred toin the order in favour of Anu Bhandari, Bhuvi Bhandari and MasterVibhu Bhandari. It is made clear that the share of Mr. Pradip Bhandariwill be equally divided among the three. This shall be done immediately.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A

A13. We are informed that an amount of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees FiftyThousand) is lying in the form of Demand Draft in the name of Ms. AnuBhandari with Judicial Magistrate First Class, Chandigarh in Case No.301 of 2013 dated 14.06.2013. We direct the Court concerned to returnthe Demand Draft to Mr. Pradip Bhandari forthwith. Mr. Pradip Bhandariis directed to pay an amount of Rs.50,000/- to Ms. Anu Bhandari withinBa week thereafter.

14. Before parting with the Judgment, we may hasten to observethat what has been closed is not simply twenty three cases; in thebackground of both the parties, they would have easily gone for manymore litigations in the coming years. Under Section 9 of the Family CourtsCAct, 1984, the Court has a duty to make an endeavour to assist andpersuade the parties in arriving at a settlement. Unlike many otherlegislations, the Legislature has cast a duty on the Court in that regard.The jurisdiction is not just to decide a dispute, on the contrary, the courtalso has to involve itself in the process of conciliation/mediation betweenDthe parties for assisting them not only to settle the disputes but also tosecure speedy settlement of disputes. Such timely intervention of thecourt will not only resolve the disputes and settle the parties peacefullybut also prevent sporadic litigations between the parties.

15. We record our deep appreciation for the strenuous effortsEtaken by Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Lisa Gill, Judge of the High Court ofPunjab and Haryana, Ms. Meenakshi Arora, learned Senior Counselappointed as Mediator by this Court and for the cooperation extendedby the learned Counsel on both sides and the parties themselves.

F16. The Civil Appeals are accordingly disposed of.F17. There shall be no order as to costs.

Divya Pandey

Appeals disposed of.

G

H