FAO No. M-238 of 2010 -1- In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh FAO No. M-238 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision : 20.4.2011 Deepak Sharma ..... Appellant vs Pooja Sharma ..... Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Madan Lal, Advocate for Mr. Raman Mahajan, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. G. S. Anand, Advocate, for the respondent. Rajesh Bindal J. Challenge in the present appeal is to the judgment and decree of the learned court below whereby petition filed by the appellant- husband under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short, “the Act”), for dissolution of marriage, was dismissed on 27.5.2010. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the marriage of the parties was solemnised as per Hindu rites on 11.10.2002 at Chandigarh. One female child namely Gauri Sharma was born out of the wedlock on 18.2.2004. Due to temperamental differences, the parties could not pull on together. They are living separate since 18.6.2005. Petition filed by the husband for dissolution of marriage under Section 13 of the Act, was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Chandigarh, on 27.5.2010. Thereafter, the appellant husband filed appeal before this court. During the pendency of the appeal, the matter was referred to the Permanent Lok Adalat in this Court, where the same was mutually settled on 18.3.2011. The text of the compromise arrived at between the father of appellant Deepak Sharma, who is his attorney, namely Sodi Ram Sharma and respondent Pooja Sharma, is as under:- FAO No. M-238 of 2010 -2- “Petitioner Deepak Sharma and respondent Pooja Sharma got married in Chandigarh on 11.10.2002. Out of the wedlock a daughter, namely, Gauri Sharma, was born on 18.2.2004. Somehow the marriage did not work. The petitioner Deepak Sharma filed a divorce petition before the Competent Court at Chandigarh primarily on the ground of cruelty. However, the same was dismissed by the learned District Judge, Chandigarh on 27.5.2010. The petitioner filed an appeal FAO No. 238-M of 2010 in the Punjab and Haryana High Court which is pending consideration. Now both the parties (husband-Deepak Sharma and wife- Pooja Sharma) have agreed mutually for the grant of divorce by mutual consent in the larger interest of the minor daughter Gauri Sharma, aged about 7 years. The parties have agreed that before grant of decree of divorce by mutual consent a sum of Rs. 11,00,000/- (Rs. Eleven Lacs only) shall be deposited by Deepak Sharma in the name of Gauri Sharma minor through her mother Pooja Sharma for a period till Gauri Sharma attains majority on 18.02.2022 with an option to the respondent Pooja Sharma to withdraw the interest of the F.D. for meeting the day to day and educational expenses of Gauri Sharma. Parties further agree that the period spent in the litigation before the Trial court as also before the Punjab and Haryana High Court may be reckoned towards the mandatory waiting period of six months under Section 13B(2). The parties will take further necessary steps in view of the compromise before the Punjab and Haryana High Court. FAO No. M-238 of 2010 -3- The custody of the minor namely Gauri Sharma shall remain with the mother Pooja Sharma. This compromise has been signed on 18.3.2011 at Chandigarh by Sh. Sodi Ram Sharma, General Power of Attorney-holder on behalf of Deepak Sharma (appellant in the FAO) and Pooja Sharma- respondent.” Both, father-attorney of the appellant, Sodi Ram Sharma and Pooja Sharma, respondent also made statement before the Permanent Lok Adalat in the High Court with regard to the compromise arrived at between the parties. Their statements are extracted as under:- Statement of Sodi Ram Sharma “I am the holder of General Power of Attorney dated 20.12.2007 on behalf of my son Deepak Sharma who is at the moment in New Zealand. (Photocopy of the registered General Power of Attorney is attached). I, on behalf of Deepak Sharma and his wife Pooja Sharma have entered into a compromise reduced into writing and signed today. The decree of divorce by mutual consent may be granted in view and in terms of the compromise.” Statement of Pooja Sharma “I have heard the statement of Sh. Sodi Ram Sharma, Attorney of Sh. Deepak Sharma. I agree with the same. Decree of divorce by mutual consent in view and in terms of the compromise may be granted.” Thereafter, the petition was amended and converted into a petition under Section 13-B of the Act for divorce by mutual consent. As per the agreement, FDR of ` 11,00,000/- in the name of Ms. Gauri Sharma has been received by her mother Pooja Sharma. Today Sodi Ram Sharma, father-attorney of Deepak Sharma appellant and Pooja Sharma, respondent were present in person in court. They were identified by their respective counsels. Their joint statement was recorded in the court. The text of the statement is extracted as under:- FAO No. M-238 of 2010 -4- “We will abide by the terms of separation as settled in the Lok Adalat in the High Court on 18.3.2011.” Thereafter, affidavit of Deepak Sharma appellant, who is presently residing at No. 10, Haavilland Drive, Good Wood Heights, Manakau, Auckland, New Zealand, was furnished, who had endorsed the settlement arrived at between his attorney father Sodi Ram Sharma and Pooja Sharma before the Lok Adalat in this court on 18.3.2011. The parties have settled their disputes amicably and got their statement recorded to this effect, which was not found to be under any pressure or coercion. The wife has received FDR of ` 11,00,000/- in the name of her daughter Gauri Sharma. The custody of Gauri Sharma will remain with her mother Pooja Sharma and the husband Deepak Sharma, will not claim her custody at any stage in future. They will not indulge each other in any litigation in future concerning the marriage and have no objection if a decree of divorce by way of mutual consent is passed. Considering the aforesaid facts and finding the statement to be bonafide, a decree of divorce by way of mutual consent is passed, dissolving the marriage of Deepak Sharma son of Sodi Ram Sharma and Pooja Sharma daughter of Ashok Kumar. The judgment of learned counsel below is set aside. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly. Decree sheet be prepared. 20.4.2011 (Rajesh Bindal) vs Judge