2003 JTR(SC) 975
2003 12 AIC 787 ; 2004 54 AllLR 162 ; 2004 2 ALT(SC) 38 ; 2004 1 AWC 79 ; 2004 1 BBCJ(SC) 79 ; 2003 4 CCR(SC) 157 ; 2003 4 Crimes(SC) 319 ; 2004 1 CurLJ 531 ; 2003 2 DMC 741 ; 2004 1 EastCrC(SC) 249 ; 2003 3 JCC 1547 ; 2003 4 JCR(SC) 230 ; 2003 Supp2 JT 554 ; 2004 1 MPWN 316 ; 2003 8 Scale 189 ; 2004 10 SCC 505 ; 2004 SCC(Cri) 1911 ; 2004 KHC 1761 ; 2003 7 Supreme 347
2003(7) Supreme 347
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Calcutta High Court)
N. Santosh Hegde & B.P. Singh, JJ.
Harpit Singh Anand -Appellant
versus
State of West Bengal -Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1231 of 2003
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 2239 of 2003)
With
Criminal Appeal No. 1232 of 2003
(@ SLP (Crl.) No. 4107/2003)
Decided on 26-9-2003
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : P.S. Mishra, Sr. Advocate, D. Srinivas Prasad, S.S. Sobti, Mrs. Ritu Sobti, Mrs. Swarupa Reddy and S. Chandra Shekhar, Advocates.
For the Respondent : Tara Chandra Sharma, Ms. Neelam Sharma, Sudhir Kumar Gupta, Anurag Pandey and Anil Arora, Advocates.
Act Referred :CONSTITUTION OF INDIA : Art.142
(A) The parties invoked the jurisdiction of the court under Article 142 of the Constitution to resolve matrimonial disputes arising from a broken marriage. The dissolution of marriage by mutual consent was sought under Section 13(B) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, while the proceedings were pending before various courts including a Chief Judicial Magistrate and a Civil Judge. The court exercised its powers under Article 142 to quash all related criminal and civil proceedings, including FIRs and matrimonial petitions, directing their closure in accordance with the compromise terms, thereby achieving a final resolution and preventing future litigation.
(B) Key legal principles include the power of the court under Article 142 to ensure complete justice, the validity of compromise deeds in matrimonial disputes, and the dismissal of all related criminal and civil cases upon mutual consent and settlement.
Facts of the case:
The husband and wife, married in 2001 with no issue, sought dissolution due to an irretrievable breakdown. They filed criminal complaints against each other, followed by a compromise deed dated September 22, 2003, agreeing to financial settlement and return of jewelry, and praying for dismissal of all proceedings.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the marriage had broken down irretrievably, the compromise deed was fair and amicable, and all ongoing litigation should be disposed of to avoid future disputes, leading to the dismissal of all related cases and the grant of a mutual divorce.
Issues:
Whether the court can exercise powers under Article 142 to quash all related criminal and civil proceedings in a matrimonial dispute; whether a compromise deed and mutual consent can form the basis for a decree of divorce.
Ratio Decidendi:
The courts exercise of power under Article 142 to effectuate a compromise and mutual consent ensures a final and complete resolution, making further litigation unnecessary and preventing harassment of the parties.
Result:
All appeals and proceedings were disposed of, the divorce by mutual consent was granted, and all related cases were quashed and closed.
(A) The parties invoked the jurisdiction of the court under Article 142 of the Constitution to resolve matrimonial disputes arising from a broken marriage. The dissolution of marriage by mutual consent was sought under Section 13(B) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, while the proceedings were pending before various courts including a Chief Judicial Magistrate and a Civil Judge. The court exercised its powers under Article 142 to quash all related criminal and civil proceedings, including FIRs and matrimonial petitions, directing their closure in accordance with the compromise terms, thereby achieving a final resolution and preventing future litigation.
(B) Key legal principles include the power of the court under Article 142 to ensure complete justice, the validity of compromise deeds in matrimonial disputes, and the dismissal of all related criminal and civil cases upon mutual consent and settlement.
Facts of the case:
The husband and wife, married in 2001 with no issue, sought dissolution due to an irretrievable breakdown. They filed criminal complaints against each other, followed by a compromise deed dated September 22, 2003, agreeing to financial settlement and return of jewelry, and praying for dismissal of all proceedings.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the marriage had broken down irretrievably, the compromise deed was fair and amicable, and all ongoing litigation should be disposed of to avoid future disputes, leading to the dismissal of all related cases and the grant of a mutual divorce.
Issues:
Whether the court can exercise powers under Article 142 to quash all related criminal and civil proceedings in a matrimonial dispute; whether a compromise deed and mutual consent can form the basis for a decree of divorce.
Ratio Decidendi:
The courts exercise of power under Article 142 to effectuate a compromise and mutual consent ensures a final and complete resolution, making further litigation unnecessary and preventing harassment of the parties.
Result:
All appeals and proceedings were disposed of, the divorce by mutual consent was granted, and all related cases were quashed and closed.
ORDER
Leave granted.
2. All these appeals arise out of matrimonial dispute between Harpit Singh - the husband and Gur Preet Anand Kaur - the wife, who were married on 7th January, 2001. They have no issue from the said marriage and from the record it is seen that the disputes that have arisen between the two have reached such a position that the marriage has broken down irretrievably inspite of efforts of all well wishers. Parties have taken recourse to criminal proceedings against each other, details of which will be referred to hereinafter. It is because of the criminal complaint filed by the parties against each other. The above S.L.Ps., seeking various reliefs including the relief of anticipatory bail, have been preferred before this court. Fortunately, good sense has since prevailed and parties have now come to an amicable settlement and filed a Compromise Deed signed by both the husband and the wife witnessed by other well wishers before this Court. The Deed is dated on 22nd September, 2003 and the same is taken on record.
3. As per the terms of the Deed one of the terms of the said settlement is that the husband has to pay sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rs. Five lacs only) to the wife towards full and final settlement of all her claims for maintenance - past, present and future which amount has been paid in this Court receipt of which the wife acknowledges and the wife has relinquished all her rights to claim any maintenance or alimony - past, present or future.
4. The parties have also agreed all the jewelleries brought by the wife have been returned already to the wife and those articles which are yet to be returned to the wife, list of which is annexed to this Deed, will be handed over to the wife or her representatives at Pune, on such persons approaching the husband.
5. Parties have also agreed that all their complaints and other petitions filed, may be dismissed by this Court exercising the power vested in this Court under Article 142 of the Constitution, by which complete justice to the parties will be done in this case and would avoid all future litigations.
6. On facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the fact that the parties themselves have agreed and prayed for the final disposal of all cases, we direct :
(1) Case No. M 65/2003 pending in the Court of Vth Chief Judicial Magistrate Sealdah.
(2) FIR Case No. 14 dated 9th January, 2003, filed under Section 498A/406 328/511/307 IPC registered at Police station Benia Pukur, Calcutta and the future proceedings arising from the same;
(3) The Marriage Petition No. 70/2003 pending before the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pune, filed under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking the dissolution of the marriage;
are all quashed and the said cases shall be closed either by the respective investigating agencies or by the courts concerned based on this order.
7. Parties have filed before this Court a Divorce Petition by mutual consent under Section 13(B) of the Hindu Marriage Act, which is taken on record. We have perused the same and in our opinion, in view of the fact that marriage between the parties has broken down irretrievably, it is necessary that to put a quietus to all litigations between the parties and not to leave any room for future litigation and on the request of the said parties exercising the power vested in us under Article 142 of the Constitution, we allow this petition for divorce by mutual consent and direct that this marriage solemnised is dissolved and they are granted a decree of divorce by mutual consent.
8. The parties are directed to strictly adhere to the terms of the Compromise Deed filed before this Court as also the orders or directions made by us in this order. The above appeals and other proceedings, reference to which has been made, in the course of this order, shall stand disposed of in the said terms.
Appeal disposed of accordingly.
***************