Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
FA/3121/2010 4/ 4 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
FIRST
APPEAL No.3121 of 2010
With
FIRST
APPEAL No.3122 of 2010
For
Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL Sd/-
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE R.M.CHHAYA
Sd/-
=====================================================
1
Whether
Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
NO
2
To
be referred to the Reporter or not ?
NO
3
Whether
their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?
NO
4
Whether
this case involves a substantial question of law as to the
interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order
made thereunder ?
NO
5
Whether
it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?
NO
=====================================================
PREETI
R. RANKA & 1 - Appellant(s)
Versus
RAJESH
MAGANLAL RANKA - Defendant(s)
=====================================================
Appearance
:
MR SS BELSARE for Appellant(s) : 1
- 2.
MR JAYESH A KOTECHA for Respondent (s) : 1,
MR RT SONGARA
for Respondent (s) :
1,
=====================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL
and
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE R.M.CHHAYA
Date
: 27/09/2011
COMMON
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per
: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL)
First
Appeal No.3121 of 2010 arises against judgment and order dated
20.04.2009 passed by Family Court, Ahmedabad below Petition No.713
of 2001, whereas First Appeal No.3122 of 2010 arises against the
judgment
and order dated 20.04.2009 passed by Family Court,
Ahmedabad below Review Application No.2 of 2004.
We
may record that appellant-Preeti R. Ranka in both the matters is
wife and respondent-Rajesh Maganlal Ranka is the husband, as per the
proceedings before the Family Court. In Family Suit No.132 of 2001,
judgment and order was passed on the basis that there was mutual
divorce to be taken under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
but the case of the appellant was that in her place some other lady
was produced and the court was misled. When it came to the knowledge
of the appellant, the appellant preferred review application in the
proceedings and the Family Court dismissed the review application,
against which the present
appeals before this Court.
We
may record that as it was a dispute between the wife and husband, we
had referred the matter to the Mediation Center of this Court vide
order dated 11.05.2011 passed in Civil Application No.1522 of 2011
in First Appeal No.1321 of 2010, which reads as under:
The
application is for directing interim maintenance for applicant No.1
– wife and applicant No.2 – daughter.
We have
heard Mr.Belsare, ld.advocate for the applicants and Mr.Kotecha,
ld.advocate for the respondent.
It was
submitted by Mr.Kotecha, at the outset fairly that, his client is
ready to bear the maintenance of his daughter- applicant No.2.
Hence,
considering the facts and circumstances, we direct that the
respondent shall pay maintenance of Rs.3000/- p.m. from May 2011
onwards, and the first maintenance shall be paid on or before
10.6.2011. It is further observed that the FDR with the State Bank
of India having maturity value of Rs.1,01,221/-, shall continue to
remain as investment, and respondent undertakes to abide by the
same.
So far
as the maintenance of applicant No.1- wife is concerned, we
find that before this Court examines the aspects of right of
maintenance of the wife or otherwise, since it is a dispute between
husband and wife, it would be just and proper, if the matter is
referred to the Mediation Centre for amicable settlement for all
times to come. Hence, office shall refer the matter to the Mediation
Centre. Attempt shall be made to settle the dispute between the
parties, preferably within a period of three months. Thereafter, if
the dispute is not settled, matter shall be placed on judicial side
for appropriate orders.
Under
the circumstances, no decision is rendered on the aspects of the
entitlement of maintenance to the wife – applicant No.1
herein. In the event the matter is not settled, it would be open to
the applicant No.1 to move appropriate application for interim
maintenance, if otherwise permissible in law.
The
application disposed of accordingly.
It
appears that thereafter before the Mediation Center the case was
registered as Mediation Case No.43 of 2011 and ultimately a
settlement has been arrived at between appellant No.1-wife and the
respondent-husband on 30.08.2011. There is a report of the mediator
and a xerox copy of the settlement is also forwarded with the
report.
When
the appeals are taken up for hearing appellant No.1, with her
advocate Mr.Belsare, is present and the respondent-Rajesh Maganlal
Ranka is also present, who has been identified by appellant No.1.
They both confirmed that the settlement is entered into and
accordingly the matters may be disposed of. We find that when it is
a matter between the wife and husband and they have settled the
issue, the same can be allowed to operate.
Under
the circumstances, the present appeals are disposed of in terms of
the settlement dated 30.08.2011 made before the Mediation Center of
this Court and admitted and confirmed by this Court. The rights of
the parties shall stand governed as per the terms of the settlement
dated 30.08.2011.
Both
the appeals are disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as
to costs.
Registry
to place a copy of this order in connected matter.
Sd/-
[JAYANT
PATEL,J]
Sd/-
[R.M.CHHAYA,
J ]
***
Bhavesh*
Top