2003 JTR(SC) 1126
2003 12 AIC 83 ; 2004 AIR(SC) 161 ; 2003 AIR(SCW) 5841 ; 2004 1 AllCJ 491 ; 2004 1 BBCJ(SC) 101 ; 2004 1 BBCJ(SC) 266 ; 2004 2 BomCR(SC) 493 ; 2003 4 CCR(SC) 326 ; 2004 1 CurLJ 448 ; 2003 2 DMC 795 ; 2004 DNJ 27 ; 2004 1 EastCrC(SC) 254 ; 2004 1 ICC 601 ; 2003 3 JCC 1863 ; 2003 3 JKJ(SC) 121 ; 2004 1 JLJR(SC) 30 ; 2004 1 PLJR(SC) 64 ; 2004 1 RCR(Civ) 225 ; 2004 RLR 128 ; 2003 9 Scale 489 ; 2004 1 SCC 123 ; 2004 SCC(Cri) 25 ; 2004 KHC 337 ; 2003 8 Supreme 85
2003(8) Supreme 85
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(Under Article (1)/(2) of the Constitution of India)
N. Santosh Hegde & B.P. Singh, JJ.
Smt. Swati Verma -Petitioner
versus
Rajan Verma & Ors. -Respondents
Transfer Petition (Crl.) No. 240 of 2003
With
Criminal Misc. Petition No. 9841 of 2003
Decided on 11-11-2003
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Petitioner : Ranjit Kumar, Sr. Advocate, Jasbir Singh and Devendra Singh, Advocates.
For the Respondents : Kamlendra Mishra, Rajiv Kumar Dubey, Ms. Rashmi Singh, Pramod Swarup, Jagdish Kumar Chawla and Pramod K. Sharma, Advocates.
Act
Referred
:CONSTITUTION OF INDIA : Art.142
HINDU MARRIAGE ACT : S.13(b)
INDIAN PENAL CODE : S.498(a), S.406
(A) The Hindu Marriage Act, Section 13(B) read with Article 142 of the Constitution provided the jurisdictional foundation for dissolving the marriage by mutual consent, while the Indian Penal Code, Sections 498A (cruelty), 406 (criminal breach of trust), and the Dowry Prohibition Act, Sections 3 and 4 (dowry demands) framed the context of matrimonial disputes that were ultimately resolved through a compromise. The compromise deed, filed under the extraordinary powers of the Court, effectively addressed the restitution of stridhan, payment of maintenance, and quashing of the criminal and civil proceedings, thereby achieving a full and final settlement of all disputes under the enabling provisions of the referenced statutes.
(B) Key legal principles include the exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 142 to grant a decree of divorce by mutual consent, the enforceability of a valid compromise deed, the principle of disposing of all connected litigation in one proceeding, and the non-availability of future claims once a final settlement is reached.
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was married to the respondent according to Hindu rites. Soon after marriage, she alleged ill-treatment and abandonment, leading to the filing of criminal and civil cases, including charges under Section 498A and 406 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The parties later entered into a compromise deed, returning stridhan and providing for maintenance, and agreed to file a petition for divorce by mutual consent.
Findings of Court:
The Court found that the marriage had broken down irretrievably, that the compromise was genuine and voluntary, and that it was just and equitable to exercise Article 142 to dissolve the marriage and dispose of all connected cases.
Issues:
Whether the Court can exercise extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 142 to grant a decree of divorce by mutual consent and dispose of all connected criminal and civil proceedings; whether a valid compromise deed bars future litigation.
Ratio Decidendi:
The Court, in exercise of its extraordinary powers under Article 142, granted a decree of divorce by mutual consent under Section 13(B) of the Hindu Marriage Act, observing that the genuine compromise deed settled all disputes and rendered connected proceedings infructuous, thereby preventing future litigation.
Result:
The marriage was dissolved by decree of divorce under Section 13(B) of the Hindu Marriage Act, all connected cases were quashed, and the compromise deed was made part of the order.
(A) The Hindu Marriage Act, Section 13(B) read with Article 142 of the Constitution provided the jurisdictional foundation for dissolving the marriage by mutual consent, while the Indian Penal Code, Sections 498A (cruelty), 406 (criminal breach of trust), and the Dowry Prohibition Act, Sections 3 and 4 (dowry demands) framed the context of matrimonial disputes that were ultimately resolved through a compromise. The compromise deed, filed under the extraordinary powers of the Court, effectively addressed the restitution of stridhan, payment of maintenance, and quashing of the criminal and civil proceedings, thereby achieving a full and final settlement of all disputes under the enabling provisions of the referenced statutes.
(B) Key legal principles include the exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 142 to grant a decree of divorce by mutual consent, the enforceability of a valid compromise deed, the principle of disposing of all connected litigation in one proceeding, and the non-availability of future claims once a final settlement is reached.
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was married to the respondent according to Hindu rites. Soon after marriage, she alleged ill-treatment and abandonment, leading to the filing of criminal and civil cases, including charges under Section 498A and 406 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The parties later entered into a compromise deed, returning stridhan and providing for maintenance, and agreed to file a petition for divorce by mutual consent.
Findings of Court:
The Court found that the marriage had broken down irretrievably, that the compromise was genuine and voluntary, and that it was just and equitable to exercise Article 142 to dissolve the marriage and dispose of all connected cases.
Issues:
Whether the Court can exercise extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 142 to grant a decree of divorce by mutual consent and dispose of all connected criminal and civil proceedings; whether a valid compromise deed bars future litigation.
Ratio Decidendi:
The Court, in exercise of its extraordinary powers under Article 142, granted a decree of divorce by mutual consent under Section 13(B) of the Hindu Marriage Act, observing that the genuine compromise deed settled all disputes and rendered connected proceedings infructuous, thereby preventing future litigation.
Result:
The marriage was dissolved by decree of divorce under Section 13(B) of the Hindu Marriage Act, all connected cases were quashed, and the compromise deed was made part of the order.
ORDER
B.P. Singh, J.-The petitioner in this transfer petition Swati Verma, was married to respondent No. 1 herein Rajiv Verma, at Delhi on June 30, 2001 according to Hindu rites. It appears that soon after the marriage the petitioner complained of ill treatment by her husband, her mother-in-law and sister-in-law. On 17.9.2001 she was left at her widowed mother s house by respondent No. 1 whereafter the respondent No. 1 took no care of her, nor were his whereabouts known to the petitioner. The parties thereafter have taken recourse to criminal as well as civil proceedings to which we shall refer hereinafter. The petitioner herein lodged a report at police station NOIDA, Sector-20 on 8th April, 2002 against the respondents herein for offences under Sections 498A, 406 IPC and under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The police after investigation has filed chargesheet in the said case and the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, NOIDA, Gautam Budh Nagar has taken cognizance. The said case is registered as Criminal Case No. 2832 of 2003.
2. The respondents have filed an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Misc. Application No. 5594 of 2003 for quashing the said Criminal Case No. 2832 of 2003. It appears from the averments made in the transfer petition filed in this Court that the respondents have also moved the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Writ Petition Nos. 1829 of 2003 and 2511 of 2003 seeking stay of arrest in the case arising out of the FIR lodged by the petitioner herein in which interim relief has been granted to the respondents herein by orders dated 23.4.2003 and 14.5.2003.
3. The petitioner has also filed an application before the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Delhi for annulment of marriage by a decree of divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act which has been registered as H.M.A.No. 1108 of 2002 which is pending consideration before the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge. She has also filed an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act for maintenance.
4. It appears that after notice was issued in the transfer petition good sense has prevailed and the parties have been able to amicably settle their disputes and have decided to put a quietus to the litigations between the parties. They realise that the marriage has broken down irretrievably and therefore it is in their interest that the marriage be annulled by a decree of divorce and all the disputes be settled between the parties.
5. A Deed of Compromise dated November 2, 2003 has been filed before this Court which is signed by the petitioner as well as respondent No. 1 and witnessed by two witnesses. The compromise records the fact that the respondent No. 1 herein has returned to the petitioner all the articles constituting her Stridhan as detailed in Annexure A to the Compromise Deed. Respondent No. 1 has also agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 6,00,000/- (Rupees six lakh only) to the petitioner by bank drafts towards settlement of her claim for maintenance, past and future and her remaining articles and Stridhan. The particulars of eight demand drafts totaling Rs. 6,00,000/- have been mentioned in Annexure B to the Compromise Deed which have already been handed over to counsel for respondent No. 1 in Court on 5.11.2003, which we record. They have also agreed that they shall file before this Court a petition for divorce by mutual consent under Section 13(B) of the Hindu Marriage Act. The parties have undertaken that they shall adhere to the terms of the Compromise Deed and shall not litigate in future and that after signing of the Deed of Compromise both the parties shall be left with no claim of any manner whatsoever against each other. They have also agreed that the cases mentioned in the Deed of Compromise be disposed of by this Court.
6. Pursuant to the Compromise Deed an application has been filed before this Court under Section 13(B) of the Hindu Marriage Act and under Article 142 of the Constitution praying that this Court may exercise its extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution and dissolve the marriage by a decree of divorce by mutual consent under Section 13(B) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 as amended by the Marriage Laws (Amendment) Act, 1976. The petitioner and respondent No. 1 have stated in the said application that their marriage has broken down irretrievably and there is no chance of their living together, and therefore they have mutually agreed that the marriage should be dissolved. It is further declared that mutual consent has not been obtained by force, fraud or inducement.
7. Having perused the records placed before us we are satisfied that the marriage between the parties has broken down irretrievably and with a view to restore good relationship and to put a quietus to all litigations between the parties and not to leave any room for future litigation, so that they may live peacefully hereafter, and on the request of the parties, in exercise of the power vested in this Court under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, we allow the application for divorce by mutual consent filed before us under Section 13(B) of Hindu Marriage Act and declare that the marriage solemnized between the consenting parties on 13th June, 2001 at Delhi is hereby dissolved, and they are granted a decree of divorce by mutual consent.
8. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the fact that the parties have prayed before this Court for the final disposal and all cases pending between the parties, we direct that all the cases shall stand disposed of in the following manner :- Criminal Case No. 2832 of 2003 under Section 498-A, 406 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, NOIDA, Gautam Budh Nagar, (U.P.) is quashed. Accordingly, Writ Petition Nos. 1829 of 2003 and 2511 of 2003 and Criminal Misc. Application No. 5594 of 2003 arising out of the said Criminal Case No. 2832 of 2003 pending before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad become infructuous. H.M.A. case No. 1108/2002 pending in the Court of Additional District Judge, Delhi praying for a decree of divorce also becomes infructous in view of the decree of divorce granted by this Court under Section 13(B) of the Hindu Marriage Act. Criminal Writ No. 1067/2003 pending before the Hon ble High Court of Delhi has also been rendered infructous in view of the compromise entered into between the parties recorded by this Court. The Courts concerned shall, if necessary, pass appropriate orders in the light of this order.
9. Transfer Petition stands disposed of in the above terms. The Compromise Deed dated November 2, 2003 affirmed by the parties and filed in this Court shall form part of this Order.
Petition disposed.
**************