Civil Revision No. 2898 of 2010 (O&M) [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 19.7.2010 Preety Sood .....Petitioner Versus Jaspreet Singh ….Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Shri Jasdeep Singh Gill, Advocate, for the petitioner. Shri R.S. Randhawa, Advocate, for the respondent. Hemant Gupta, J. (Oral) Challenge in the present petition is to the order dated 22.1.2010 passed by the learned trial Court, whereby an application filed by the respondent directing the petitioner to refund Rs.3 lacs received in terms of settlement, was allowed, whereas an application filed by the petitioner to declare the settlement as a result of fraud and misrepresentation, was dismissed. The case has chequered history. The parties got married on 23.6.2003 and due to incompatibility between the parties, a petition for dissolution of marriage by mutual consent was filed on Civil Revision No. 2898 of 2010 (O&M) [2] 3.5.2008. An amount of Rs.3 lacs was paid to the petitioner as a part of settlement for dissolution of marriage and another sum of Rs.2 lacs was deposited in the Court, which amount was payable to the petitioner at the time of granting of decree of dissolution of marriage. The petitioner did not appear before the learned trial Court to make her statement consenting for dissolution of marriage and consequently the petition for dissolution of marriage by mutual consent was dismissed on 20.1.2009. The respondent filed a petition before this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for directing the petitioner to refund Rs.3 lacs received in terms of the settlement for dissolution of marriage. The said petition was disposed of by this Court on 20.3.2009 with liberty to the respondent to seek compliance of the statement dated 3.5.2008, wherein the parties have agreed to dissolve marriage by mutual consent, before the trial Court. After the aforesaid order was passed, the petitioner filed an application alleging the settlement as a result of fraud and misrepresentation, whereas respondent filed an application for refund of Rs.3 lacs paid to the petitioner. It may be stated that after the petition for dissolution of marriage by mutual consent was dismissed on 20.1.2009, there were multiple civil and criminal litigations between the parties. When the matter was taken up for hearing before this Court today, the parties, present in Court, agreed for dissolution of marriage by mutual consent and to abide by the statements given by the parties on 3.5.2008 before the learned trial Court. They have also agreed that within 15 days, all the pending civil and criminal litigations filed by them against each other before any authority or Civil Revision No. 2898 of 2010 (O&M) [3] Court of law shall be withdrawn. An affidavit dated 19.7.2010 to this effect is taken on record. It is prayed by the counsel for the parties that the order dated 20.1.2009 dismissing the petition for dissolution of marriage by mutual consent be also set aside. It is also pointed out that the sum of Rs.2 lacs which was deposited by respondent before the learned trial Court, has not been withdrawn by the petitioner and now can be withdrawn by the petitioner in terms of the order of dissolution of marriage by mutual consent, which may be passed by the learned trial Court. In view of the consent of the parties, order dated 20.1.2009 and order dated 22.1.2010 are hereby set aside. The matter is remitted back to the learned trial Court for recording statements of the parties, if any, required for dissolution of marriage by mutual consent. Needless to say that the parties would be bound by their respective statements to withdraw all the pending civil and criminal litigations lodged against each other within 15 days as asserted in the affidavit dated 19.7.2010. Parties are directed to appear before the learned trial Court on 28.7.2010 for further proceedings, in accordance with law. Copy of the order be given Dasti on payment of usual charges. [ HEMANT GUPTA ] JUDGE 19-07-2010 sjks/ds Civil Revision No. 2898 of 2010 (O&M) [4]