1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
SECOND APPEAL NO. 40 OF 2009
Sau. Sushama w/o Pramod Taksande,
Aged 30 years, Household,
r/o. C/o. Shri Wasudeo Shendre, Rani
Laxmibai Ward, Pandharkawada,
Tahsil Kelapur, District - Yavatmal.
ig ... APPELLANT.
VERSUS
Shri Pramod s/o Ramaji Taksande,
Age 42 years, occupation - Businessman,
Karanji Road, Tahsil Kelapur,
District - Yavatmal. ... RESPONDENT.
----------------------
Mr. R.D. Bhuibar, Advocate for Appellant.
Mr. Anjan De, Advocate for Respondent.
-----------------------
CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.
Date of Reserving Order. - 04.02.2009
Date of Pronouncement. - 17.03.2009
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:25:38 :::
2
ORAL JUDGMENT.
1. The appellant before this Court is wife and she challenges
judgment dated 6.12.2008 delivered by the District Judge -I,
Pandharkawada, affirming the judgment dated 6.10.2008 passed by the
Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pandharkawada (Kelapur). The Civil
Judge, has in H.M.P. No.24/2008 presented under section 13[B] of
Hindu Marriage Petition, dissolved marriage between the parties
because of consent and the custody of two sons with father Pramod was
continued as wife agreed not to seek the custody. It is also recorded
that wife waived her right of maintenance. This order was challenged
by wife in Regular Civil Appeal No. 68/2008 inter-alia contending that
her signature on said petition and accompanying affidavits were
obtained under false pretext and she was compelled to place her
signature upon it. She contended that both the parties were residing
together and there was no separation for a period of one year which is a
mandatory requirement. The Lower Appellate Court has considered this
ground and in paragraph no.7 found that petition was presented on
4.4.2008, parties were directed to remain present on 6.10.2008 and
from pleadings it appeared that both parties were not ready to continue
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 14:25:38 :::
3
their marital tie. In their affidavits, both state that they were residing
separately from February, 2007 and hence both were residing away
from each other for more than one year before the presentation of the
Section 13[B] petition. The Appellate Court also found that the
affidavit of wife demonstrated that they were residing separately from
one year before filing of the petition. It also noted that Advocate for
husband submitted that, wife was residing at house of her brother at
Karanji itself and this submission was not “refuted” by appellant i.e.
wife. In view of this consideration the appeal came to be dismissed.
2. I have heard Advocate Shri Bhuibar, for appellant – Wife and
Advocate Shri Anjan De, for respondent – husband in this background.
3. On 04.02.2009 following three questions were framed and
after hearing the parties, the appeal was closed for orders/ judgment.
“(1) Whether in present facts and circumstances, there
is compliance with provision of Section 23[1][bb] of
the Hindu Marriage Act ?
(2) Whether the petitioner - Wife could have
challenged the judgment and order in
H.M.P.No.24/2008 in Appeal ?
(3) Whether the petitioner-Wife has indulged in
perjury?"
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:25:38 :::
4
Then it was felt that an attempt for re-conciliation should have been
made even in High Court, accordingly, in consultation with both the
Advocates sought time for the said purpose till 02.03.2009 and
ultimately both of them expressed their inability and stated that efforts
undertaken for re-conciliation failed. The matter was therefore again
heard on 02.03.2009 and on that date Advocate Shri De for respondent
invited attention to the provisions of Order 41 Rule 25 of C.P.C. to urge
that if this Court finds it necessary, a limited issue or question can be
framed and finding upon it can be called from the Trial Court. The
appeal was finally closed for judgment on 02.03.2009.
4. Advocate Shri Bhuibar, has contended that the requirement
of law in this respect is very clear and the Civil Judge, Senior Division
has to record a satisfaction under Section 23[1][bb] so as to avoid such
contentions and arguments from being raised. He invites attention to
the fact that address of both the parties mentioned in the marriage
petition is same and their affidavits also mention very same address.
There is nothing on record to show that they were residing away from
each other and the petition itself did not demonstrates that parties were
staying separately for more than one year. He relies upon two
judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court reported at AIR 1998 SC 764–
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 14:25:38 :::
5
Balwinder Kaur .vrs. Hardeep Singh , Sureshta Devi .vrs. Om Prakash–
1991 (1) Mh.L.J. 324, to urge that the Lower Courts have failed to
exercise jurisdiction in accordance with the law. AIR 1987 Punjab 191
Smt. Krishna Khetarpal .vrs. Satish Lal, is being pointed out to show
that the present appeal is maintainable. Lastly it is argued that in view
of the document filed along with the reply by the present
respondent/husband need for counseling couple was apparent and Civil
Judge, Senior Division has not held any conciliation proceeding in the
matter. The learned counsel therefore, prayed for allowing the Second
Appeal.
5. Advocate Shri Anjan De, for respondent – husband has
placed strong reliance upon the documents filed by the respondent on
affidavit along with Civil Application No. 130/2009. The said
application is also styled as “submissions”. It is for taking action for
perjury and for contempt of Court against the appellant. It is pleaded
that the documents accompanying it are obtained under Right to
Information Act. The first document is report submitted by the S.D.P.O.
Pandharkawada on 20.08.2008 to Assistant Superintendent of Police, at
Yavatmal after enquiry into the complaint made by Digamber Ramdas
Dhote. He is father of present appellant. The second document is the
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 14:25:38 :::
6
oral statement recorded by S.D.P.O. The fourth document is statement
dated 18.8.2008 of present appellant and in that statement she has that
she is married with the present respondent and has two sons from him.
She has further stated that she has love affair with police constable
Surendra Wasnik, since last one year and she has gone out with him and
when ever he used to visit her, he used to present her with Saree or
some ornaments out of love. This relationship was not liked by her
parents and some others and hence complaint came to be filed against
Shri Wasnik, She mentioned that she had applied for divorce before the
Court and case would be decided within a month. After grant of
divorce from court she was going to reside with Shri Wasnik because of
their relations. Her father in law and mother in law had agreed to look
after her sons and hence custody of sons would be with them. She has
further stated that before moving for divorce she had a talk with Shri
Wasnik on mobile phone of her husband and as Shri Wasnik promised
that they would reside jointly, she had informed accordingly to her
husband who was standing by her side. She further stated that she had
tried to contact Surendra Wasnik on mobile in last 2/3 months, but
contact could not be established. Document no.5, is statement of her
husband [present respondent], which shows that he has corroborated
the above position. He has further stated that his wife is deeply in love
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 14:25:38 :::
7
with Shri Wasnik and they also tried to commit suicide by pouring
kerosene and because of this ultimately proceedings for divorce were
required to be initiated. Annexure-R2 with this reply is copy of
application dated 4.4.2008 filed in the court of Civil Judge, Senior
Division, Pandharkawada where both the parties to this appeal pointed
out that as the applicant no.2 wife therein wanted to marry Surendra
Wasnik, waiting period of 6 months should be relaxed. Annexure- R3 is
the affidavit dated 6.10.2008 filed by the present appellant before the
said Court in which she has mentioned that they have not been residing
together as such from February 2007 and as there was no possibility of
reconciliation on 4.4.2008, proceedings for divorce by mutual consent
came to be filed. She has further stated that she is not going to claim
any maintenance from her husband and also waived her right to
custody of children. She has further stated that she was not carrying
from her husband and as re-conciliation was not possible, though
relatives tried to mediate and resolve, she was voluntarily severing the
relationship. She has further stated that she is firm on her decision
taken 6 months earlier.
6. In view of this document Advocate Shri De, contends that
even after filing of the proceedings for grant of divorce on 4.4.2008 the
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 14:25:38 :::
8
desire and decision of present appellant to separate from the respondent
has come on record and he points out that all these statements are
recorded also 4 months thereafter. He states that therefore plea of any
mis representation or coercion or pressure is clearly by way of after
thought and false affidavit has been filed before this Court. According
to him it is nothing but perjury and as it interferes with the
administration of justice it also constitutes contempt of Court. He has
invited attention to statement of Surendra Wasnik recorded on
19.8.2008 by the S.D.P.O in which Surendra Wasnik has stated that he
was not knowing the present appellant and he had even never talked
with her. He has further stated that because there was some quarrel or
misunderstanding between the said lady and her husband, she filed
proceedings in the court of law and as she needed some shelter, she was
trying to get into his house. He further stated that he is already married
and his wife was working in health department as staff nurse and his
son aged about 7 years is taking education in school at Yavatmal. He
further mentions that because of service of his wife, his wife and
children were residing at Yavatmal only. The S.D.P.O has in brief
narrated all these statements and in his report, stated that police
constable Surendra Wasnik had conducted himself in a manner not
becoming of his status and therefore he deserves tobe punished. It is
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 14:25:38 :::
9
the contention of Advocate Shri De, that because of change in his
statement by Shri Wasnik, as it became clear to appellant that he is not
going to marry or reside with her, she might have changed her stand.
According to him in present circumstances, there is substantial
compliance with provisions of Section 23[1][bb] and entire case law
cited above is not relevant. He points out that from orders passed on
9.4.2008 it is apparent that the Presiding Officer has heard both of them
and then after perusal of the contents of petition adjourned it to
6.10.2008. He therefeore, states that efforts to conciliate were also
made on that date and hence no substantial question of law arise in this
Second Appeal and the same deserves to be dismissed.
7. The contention of Advocate Shri De, in Civil Application
No.130/2009, is to initiate action against the appellant / wife and to
punish her for perjury. The said application is also to be treated as
submissions of respondent / husband. The documents prepared by
Deputy Divisional Police Officer and report submitted by him to the
Superintendent of Police, Yavatmal are relied upon to show that, there
was no pressure of any type upon the appellant / wife and her
contention that her signature on petition for grant of divorce by mutual
consent or that on affidavits were obtained by force, are false. It is also
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 14:25:38 :::
10
alleged that by making false allegations before this Court, she obtained
interim order on 30.01.2009. I find it premature to rely on the said
documents at this stage and to return any finding on perjury on this
basis. The interim order was passed by this Court on 30.01.2009 after
hearing both the sides. The report prepared by police or statements
recorded by police are still not put to the appellant, as required by law
and hence at this stage it cannot be used against her. Perusal of the
statements recorded by police and report prepared on its basis, reveal
that the appellant / wife wanted to have relations with police Constable
Shri Wasnik and wanted to cohabit with him. The statement also
discloses that she had made telephone calls accordingly to the said
constable by using mobile instrument of her husband and in presence of
her husband. The police constable Shri Wasnik assured to cohabit with
her and then only she filed the application for divorce along with her
husband. But unless and until all these facts are proved on record, no
reliance can be placed upon the same at this stage. The prayer to
punish the appellant for perjury is therefore premature. Recourse to
Order 41 Rule 25, only for this purpose in present matter is not
warranted.
8. The provisions of Section 13[B] of Hindu Marriage Act
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 14:25:38 :::
11
require the parties to live separately for a period of one year before
petition for grant of divorce is presented. Perusal of application as
moved by the parties jointly on 4.4.2008 reveals that it does not disclose
this fact & does not contain any statement in this respect. On 4.4.2008
the petition was presented and the in charge Court directed it to be
placed before the regular Presiding Officer. Both the parties were
present before the regular court on 09.04.2008. The said court i.e. Trial
Court has recorded that it perused the contents of the petition and
heard both of them in person. Thereafter it adjourned the matter to
06.10.2008 for further orders. The order therefore clearly shows that
the fact whether parties were residing together or were residing
separately has not been specifically gone into by the said Court on
09.04.2008. The petition as filed prima facie shows that both of them
were residing at same place. Advocate Shri De, has contended that the
appellant was residing with her brother in same village. However, the
position is to be verified by the Trial Court on very first date, and this
exercise ought to have been undertaken on 09.04.2008 itself. Advocate
Shri De, has pointed out that on 4.4.2008 the parties had moved
application for waiving the requirement of waiting for 6 months and in
it, it has been mentioned that wife had to remarry immediately with
Shri Wasnik, Police Constable. This application is supported by separate
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 14:25:38 :::
12
affidavits of both. Dates given by the Trial Court show that no such
exemption was granted by it. However, orders if any, passed upon it
have not been brought on record. On 6.10.2008 again wife has filed
affidavit and in the said affidavit, she has mentioned that there was
difference of opinion between the two since beginning and they were
residing separately from February 2007. She has stated that she was
reiterating her decision to obtain divorce by mutual consent. It is to be
noted that the grievance of the appellant is that her signatures were
obtained against her wish by her husband.
9. The judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sureshta
Devi .vrs. Om Prakash (1991 Mh.L.J. 324), the Hon’ble Apex Court has
held that, it is open to the parties to even unilaterally withdraw
through consent at any time. In paragraph No. 9 the Hon’ble Apex
Court has noted that parties have to make joint motion not earlier than
6 months after the date of presentation of petition and such much
enables the Trial Court to find out the genuineness of the averments in
the petition and also to find out whether the consent was not obtained
by force, fraud or undue influence. The Trial Court can make such
enquiry as it thinks fit, including examining parties for that purpose and
if it is satisfied that consent of the parties were not obtained by force,
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 14:25:38 :::
13
fraud or undue influence and that they mutually agreed for dissolution
of marriage, the Trial Court must pass a decree of divorce.
In Balwinder Kaur .vrs. Hardeep Singh (supra) in paragraph
No.15, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that Section 23 of Hindu
Marriage Act mandates that Court before granting decree of divorce has
to satisfy itself that grounds for claiming relief exists and petitioner is
not taking advantage of his own wrong or disability. Court has to make
an effort to bring about re-conciliation between the parties. I find that
the provisions of Section 23[1][bb] require the Court to satisfy itself
that consent for divorce under section 13[B] has not been obtained by
force, fraud or undue influence. This application of mind has to be on
very first date when the court adjourns the matter for conciliation or for
statutory period and must reveal itself in the court order then passed.
The said order must also disclose that the court had satisfied itself that
the matter fulfilled all requirements of law relevant at that stage. The
earlier order & impugned judgment delivered by the Trial Court or by
the Lower Appellate Court does not show that any such satisfaction was
reached or recorded by the Trial Court. The final order passed on
16.02.2008 by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, reveals that even the
date from which the parties were staying separately has not been
mentioned any where in it, and the compliance with Section 23[1][bb]
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 14:25:38 :::
14
is also not recorded. It only mentions in paragraph no.4 that dispute
between the parties could not be settled by their relatives. In paragraph
No.5 it has been mentioned that the petition was jointly presented on
04.04.2008 and statutory period of 6 months was given to parties to
find out genesis of settlement between them and thee was no fruitful
settlement. Thus there was no endeavor by the Court below to find out
whether any conciliation was possible or not. The said judgment of trial
Court was then questioned by wife by filing Appeal under Section 28 of
the Hindu Marriage Act in the Court of District Judge at
Pandharkawada. In appeal memo in paragraph no.13 it has been
specifically averred that there was no separation and the averment in
the application before the trial Court were false. It is also pleaded that
false affidavit was prepared and wife was compelled by the husband to
put her signature on it. These contentions are not considered by the
Lower Appellate Court. It appears that the Advocate who was jointly
representing the husband and wife before the Trial Court appeared on
behalf of respondent to oppose the appeal of wife. The lower Appellate
Court should not have permitted such appearance, particularly in view
of the ground of compulsion or force by the wife. Appellate Court has
found that in affidavit dated 6.10.2008 both the parties mentioned that
they were residing separately from February 2007 and hence condition
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 14:25:38 :::
15
precedent required under section 13[B] was satisfied. The contentions
of appellant / wife that her signature was obtained by pressurizing her
or then the averment in their affidavit were false, are ignored and the
fact that statutory requirement of recording satisfaction in this respect
cast upon the Trial Court by section 23 is not fulfilled, is also ignored.
Thus the appeal came to be dismissed only by accepting the disputed
affidavit as sufficient compliance.
10.
Both the judgments are therefore delivered mechanically
without any application of mind to the provisions of Law in the matter.
The obligation cast upon court by legislature while dissolving marriage
by consent is overlooked and its object has been defeated in this case.
The institution of marriage is sacred and marriage tie is not to be easily
broken. The requirement to verify the voluntary nature of consent,
provision of a period of separation, duty to attempt to conciliate and
waiting period of 6 months in court all show the seriousness with which
the parties as also the courts of law have to evaluate the facts. Here,
both the courts have acted mechanically thereby defeating the statutory
protection extended to week spouse by law. The judgments are
therefore unsustainable.
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 14:25:38 :::
16
11. Advocate Shri De, however has also raised contention that as
divorce has been obtained by mutual consent, the decree is consent
decree and hence appeal is not maintainable. In Smt. Krishna
Khetarpal .vrs. Satish Lal (supra), the Hon’ble Division Bench of that
High Court has considered the identical challenge in paragraph nos. 3 to
6 and concluded that appeal against such decree is maintainable. It has
been held that Section 28[1] of Hindu Marriage Act provides a right of
appeal and all original decrees made by the Trial Court under the said
Act are appealable. The decree of divorce by mutual consent is one
such decree & hence, also appealable. It has been observed that appeal
under section 96 of C.P.C. is on different footing and Section 96[3]
prescribing a bar of appeal against consent decree has no application. In
paragraph no.5, it is observed that a decree for divorce by mutual
consent is not based merely on mutuality of the consenting parties, but
the courts involvement in the decision making is inextricably a part of
such decree. Possibility of an error, legal or factual, in such decision
cannot be ruled out, and therefore, appeal under section 28 has been
provided for. Another Division Bench of that High Court in the case of
Charanjit Singh Mann .vrs. Neelam Maan (AIR 2006 P & H 201), has in
paragraph no.25, cited this judgment with approval. AIR 2007
Jharkhand 34 –Smt. Hina Singh .vrs. Satya Kumar Singh, is again the
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 14:25:38 :::
17
judgment of Division Bench of Hon’ble Jharkhand High Court wherein
provisions of Order 23 Rule 3 of C.P.C. are considered and ultimately in
paragraph no.3 it has been held that appeal against decree of divorce by
mutual consent is maintainable. In view of these judgments which
correctly & clearly clinch the issue, I find that appeal against such
consent decree is maintainable.
12. Legislature has cast obligations upon Court entertaining the
proceedings under section 13[B] to record a finding that consent for
divorce has not been obtained by force, fraud or undue influence. Thus
legislature has visualised that there may be a case in which consent for
divorce may be obtained and decided to provide a safeguard against
abuse of this provision. Hence obligation has been cast upon the court
to verify the same, and to record a satisfaction that the consent given by
the parties is free and voluntary. Thus having visualized abuse of such
provision for grant of divorce by mutual consent by use of force, fraud
etc., it cannot be accepted that legislature did not provide for a remedy
to the spouse aggrieved in such matters. To hold that remedy of appeal
is not available to such aggrieved spouse, will be rendering nugatory the
exercise of obligation cast upon the trial court by the Legislature. I
therefore find that the arguments of Advocate Shri De about tenability
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 14:25:38 :::
18
of appeal against such consent divorce decree are liable to be rejected.
13. In view of this consideration, it has to be held that the appeal
as filed by the appellant / wife before the Lower Appellate Court and
before this Court is legally maintainable and question no.2 needs to be
answered accordingly in affirmative in her favour.
Question no.3 about indulgence in perjury by the appellant
wife cannot be answered at this stage in absence of sufficient material,
as it is found to be premature. No remand or calling of report from trial
court in that respect is necessary as even otherwise the trial court has to
look again into the voluntary nature of wife’s consent.
Question no.1 is answered in favour of the wife by holding
that there is no compliance with provisions of Section 23[1][bb] of the
Hindu Marriage Act.
14. In the circumstances, the judgment and decree dated
06.10.2008 delivered by the Civil Judge, Senior Division,
Pandharkawada (Kelapur) in H.M.P. No. 24/2008 is hereby quashed
and set aside. Similarly, the judgment and decree dated 06.12.2008
delivered by the District Judge-I, Pandharkawada in Regular Civil
Appeal No. 68/2008 is also quashed and set aside. H.M.P. No.24/2008
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 14:25:38 :::
19
is restored back to the file of Civil Judge, Senior Division,
Pandharkawada for its further trial in accordance with law. Second
Appeal is accordingly allowed. However, in the circumstances of the
case there shall be no order as to cost.
JUDGE
Rgd.
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 14:25:38 :::