FAO -M-360 of 2014 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO - M-360 of 2014 Date of decision: 6.10.2014 [ENTITY] Appellant No.1 And [ENTITY] Appellant No.2 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE RAJ RAHUL GARG Present: Mr. [ENTITY],Advocate for the appellants. [ENTITY],J.
1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellants - (husband and wife) against the judgment and decree dated 19.9.2014 passed by the District Judge, Jhajjar, whereby the joint petition filed by the parties under [SECTION] of the [ACT] (in short, "the Act") has been dismissed.
2. A few facts relevant for the decision of the controversy involved as narrated in the appeal may be noticed. Marriage between the parties was solemnised on 11.12.2008 at Village Bawana, Tehsil and District Mahendergarh according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. During the passage of time, differences occurred between the parties. They started living separately w.e.f 29.6.2012. No cohabitation took place between the parties and the marriage had broken irretrievably. Since 29.6.2012, there was no relation between the parties. With the intervention of the respectables of the society, the parties filed petition under [SECTION] of the Act. A perusal of the petition shows that none of the party wanted to live with each other and they had settled their claims regarding dowry, jewellery etc. Statements of both the parties were recorded. The District Judge, Jhajjar vide judgment and decree dated 19.9.2014 dismissed the petition under [SECTION] of the Act being collusive. Hence the instant appeal by the appellant-wife.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant relied upon judgments in [ENTITY] and others v. Rajeshwar Singh, 2010(15) SCC 374, [ENTITY] vs. Dr. Mahadeo Sitaram Joshi, AIR 1991 Bombay 105, [ENTITY] vs. Neelam Mann, 2006(2) RCR (Civil) 497 (P&H) and [PRECEDENT]) to contend that the finding recorded by the trial court that petition filed under [SECTION] of the Act was collusive, cannot be legally sustained. Reliance was also placed upon affidavit filed by both the parties before the trial court in the petition under [SECTION] of the Act.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the record.
5. Under [SECTION] of the Act,where a petition is presented or prosecuted in collusion with the respondent, then the court shall not grant any relief. The word 'collusion' has not been defined in the Act. Division Bench of Mysore High Court in [PRECEDENT] elaborating the meaning of the term 'collusion' had observed as under:-
"17 mean agreement or understanding between the parties to make the Court believe in the existence or truth of the circumstances, which the parties know to be non-existent or false, and the existence or truth of the circumstances which is necessary for the grant of the relief claimed in the petition "
It was further noticed that [SECTION] of the Act purports to impose certain conditions in the interest of the society at large which is interested in maintaining continuance of matrimonial harmony between the spouses and to prevent the disruption as far as possible. Thus, collusion between the parities is one of the grounds enumerated in [SECTION] which disentitles them to a decree of divorce.
6. The trial court while rejecting the petition under [SECTION] of the Act had noticed as under:-
"3. When the parties and their counsel were asked as to what are the differences between them, they elaborated that infact the parties could not have a child; petitioner No.1 remains ill and as per their settlement, even after the decree of divorce, petitioner No.1 would stay with petitioner No.2 who would marry another lady."
7. In view of the statements made by the parties that after the divorce, appellant No.1 shall still remain with the husband, clearly pointed out that there was collusion between the parties. The trial court had rightly rejected the petition. The finding recorded by the trial court has not been shown to be illegal or perverse in any manner.
8. The judgments reported in [ENTITY], [ENTITY] and [ENTITY]'s cases (supra) relied upon were not relating to applicability of [SECTION] of the Act regarding collusion between the parties. However, the judgment of the Kerala High Court in [PRECEDENT]'s case (supra) being based on individual fact situation involved therein does not advance the case of the appellants. Consequently, finding no merit in the appeal, the same is hereby dismissed.
([ENTITY]) Judge October 06, 2014 ([ENTITY]) 'gs' Judge