^ ^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR rCHHATTISGARH] OJVSSIi FIRST APPEAL (IVI) No. 1-k 6oTo)'^t'1 Appellant: Plaintiff ^:^''»,^4i^:> ^.-•"".^ •''"^Jk'^ ....^' ^^w'" Versus Respondent: s>-Defendant imt. Seema Chauhan, W/o Santosh @ Tikesh Chauhan, Aged about 29 years, R/oWard No. 14, Dondi-Lohara, District - Durg (CG) --•-' Santosh @ Tikesh Chauhan, aged about adult, S/o Manrakhan Chauhan, R/o Dr. Rajendra Nagar, Near Manoj Pan Stall, Raipur, Distt-Raipur [C.G.]. FIRST APPEAL UNDER SECTION 19 OF THE FAMILY COURTS ACT, 1994 _^ :A j W^-;^-^ s.i ^ o RESPOSDBNT: HIGH COURT QF CHHATTISQARH, BILA8PUR HON'BLE I. M. QUDDUSI & HGN'SLE G. S3IKHAJUDDIS, JJ F.AfMtNo.76/2011 Sint. Se6ina Chauhan Vs. Santosh ®.Tikesh Chauliaa MISC. APPEAL UNDER SBCTION 173 OF THB MOTOR VBHICLES A€~T. 1988 Appearance: Mr. Kslutij Sharma, counsel for fhe appeUant. Mr, Amit Yadkikar, appears on bebaifof G. Patel, counsel for the respondent. ORAL ORDBR (11.10.2011) Per I.BS. QUDDUSI, J. 1. TIie iustant appeal has been filed by fhe plaiiitiff/wife against the iiapugned judgiaent and decree dated 09.04.2010 passed by the Additional Prtacipal Judge, Family Court (Liuk Court Balod), Dux%, m Civil Suit No.3-A of 2009 (Seema Chauhan -vs- Santosh @ Tikesh Chauhan) disnussui^the divorce u/ s 13-A of the Hindu Mamage Act, 1955. 2. Brieffacts ofthe case aie that the inam^e between the parties was solenuuzed on 22.05,2005 and a baby girl nauiely Khusboo was bom oufr-of their wedlock in 2006. The pardes were not isi good tenus, they were haviug estranged inatrunoiual relationship froin ftie veiy beginning of fheir inarriage aad fherefore, theywere constrauied to live separately aad the appeUant is residiag at her parents hoxac siace 2006- 2007. The appeUaat had filed an appUcation for divorce iinder_ J- ??S""";'wfcJ -f'^ 4) Section 13-A of fhe Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 on the ground of crueltv and desertion. However, fhe learaed court below has rejected fhe appUcation vide impugned judgment dated 09.04,2010. Beiag aggrieved by the said judgment, fhe appellaat has filed fhe instant appeal. 3. At ttus ste.ge, leamed counsels appearing for the pardes as wcU as the appeUaat aad respondent, who are present befbre ttiis Court have stated fhat fhey waut divorce by niutual consent and ffaerefore, the impugned judginent aad decree inay bc set aside and a decree under Section 13-B ofthe Act, 1955 may be passed by inutual consent. They have filed a joiat application dated 30.09.2011 duly s^aed by the appeUant Sint. Seeina Chauhan aud respondent Saatosh @ Tikesh Chauhan inentioTiing the terms aad conditions agreed by them.. In paragraph 6 of the appUcatfon dated 30.09.2011, it bas been xnentioned by the parties that "it has furfb.er been ayeed betweeu ttie appellaat and respondent that since fhc custody of ttie daughter has always been with the appellaat mother therefore even after dissolution of mamage the respondent fafher shall not clami custody ofthedaughter." 4. Learued counsel for fhe parties joiutly pray fhat this appeal be also treated as petition for'divoice by inutual consent The appeal was filed on 02.06.2010 aad therefore 18 inonths have not elapsed: Hence the appeal for setting aside fhe judgment aad decree passed by fhe court below aad converting the appeal into a petition for divorce by m.utual consent caa be aUowed on the joint request of the parties. The appeUant aad -S'- respondenf have been identified by their respective coiinsels. ^ Q^ 5. Bofh the parties, who are present aad identified by fheir leamed counsel, have also stated before fhis Court ftiat both have sigued on fhe application for divorce by inutual consent. Their stateinents have been recorded bv the Addl. Registrar (Judicial) as per the order of fhis Court dated 11.10.2011. 6. Hence, we allow fhis appeal and set aside fhe impugaed judgment and decree dated 09.04.2010 passed by the Court bclow aud allow the oraver for treating the aopeal as a oetition for divorce by inutual consent. 7. In view of fhe above, the inarriage between fhe parties is dissolved bv a decree of divorce bv niutual consent. It is directed that the application dated 30.09.2011 shaU fonn part of the decree on fhe terms aud conditions inentioaed ia fhe Kao application. Sd/- I.M.Quddusi Judge Sd/- G. Minhajuddin Judge