2007 JTR(SC) 61
2007 51 AIC 90 ; 2007 2 AIR(Kar)(R) 507 ; 2007 AIR(SCW) 930 ; 2007 3 ALD(SC) 4 ; 2007 66 AllLR 828 ; 2007 3 ALT(SC) 33 ; 2007 1 ApexCJ(SC) 473 ; 2007 2 AWC 1948 ; 2007 3 BBCJ(SC) 103 ; 2007 2 CHN(SC) 13 ; 2007 2 CivCC 201 ; 2007 3 CivLJ 287 ; 2007 1 DMC 194 ; 2007 2 ICC 299 ; 2007 5 RCR(Civ) 559 ; 2007 2 Scale 250 ; 2007 9 SCC 217 ; 2007 1 SCR 550 ; 2007 2 WBLR 605 ; 2007 2 WLR(SC) 605 ; 2007 KHC 4164 ; 2007 1 Supreme 691
2007(1) Supreme 691
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Calcutta High Court)
Dr. AR. Lakshmanan & V.S. Sirpurkar, JJ.
Pranay Majumdar—Appellant
versus
Bina Majumdar—Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 267 of 2007
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 7430/2004)
Decided on 17-1-2007
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : S.B. Upadhyay, Sr. Advocate, Santosh Mishra, Shiv Mangal Sharma and Ms. Sharmila Upadhyay, Advocates.
For the Respondent : Anoop Kumar Srivastava and Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, Advocates
Act Referred :SPECIAL MARRIAGE ACT : S.27(d)
(A) The case involves an application for the dissolution of marriage under Section 27(d) of the Special Marriage Act, 1954, which provides grounds for divorce on the basis of cruelty. The statutory framework of the Act allows a spouse to seek a decree of divorce if the other party has behaved with cruelty. In this instance, the trial court initially granted the decree based on these grounds, which was subsequently overturned by the High Court, leading to the present appeal before the Supreme Court to determine the validity of the divorce and the settlement of alimony.
(B) The court emphasizes the validity of mutual settlements in matrimonial disputes, where the parties agree to a full and final settlement of alimony and the withdrawal of pending criminal and civil proceedings to achieve a peaceful dissolution of marriage.
Facts of the case:
The husband filed for divorce under Section 27(d) of the Special Marriage Act, 1954, alleging cruelty. The trial court decreed the divorce, but the High Court of Calcutta reversed this decision. The husband appealed to the Supreme Court. During the pendency of the appeal, both parties entered into a Joint Memorandum of Settlement agreeing to a permanent alimony of Rs. 3,00,000, the return of property documents, and the withdrawal of a pending maintenance application under Section 125 Cr.P.C.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the parties had reached a comprehensive settlement and that there was no hope for a peaceful reconciliation as they had been living separately since 1990. The court noted that the payment of the agreed alimony was completed and the terms of the Joint Memorandum of Settlement were acceptable to both parties.
Issues:
Whether the marriage should be dissolved by decree of divorce based on the mutual settlement reached between the parties despite the conflicting judgments of the trial court and the High Court.
Ratio Decidendi:
When parties to a matrimonial dispute voluntarily enter into a comprehensive settlement agreement regarding alimony and the dissolution of marriage, and such settlement is executed, the court may set aside previous contrary orders to grant a decree of divorce in accordance with the parties' mutual consent.
Result:
The appeal was allowed, the order of the High Court was set aside, and the trial court's decree of divorce was restored.
(A) The case involves an application for the dissolution of marriage under Section 27(d) of the Special Marriage Act, 1954, which provides grounds for divorce on the basis of cruelty. The statutory framework of the Act allows a spouse to seek a decree of divorce if the other party has behaved with cruelty. In this instance, the trial court initially granted the decree based on these grounds, which was subsequently overturned by the High Court, leading to the present appeal before the Supreme Court to determine the validity of the divorce and the settlement of alimony.
(B) The court emphasizes the validity of mutual settlements in matrimonial disputes, where the parties agree to a full and final settlement of alimony and the withdrawal of pending criminal and civil proceedings to achieve a peaceful dissolution of marriage.
Facts of the case:
The husband filed for divorce under Section 27(d) of the Special Marriage Act, 1954, alleging cruelty. The trial court decreed the divorce, but the High Court of Calcutta reversed this decision. The husband appealed to the Supreme Court. During the pendency of the appeal, both parties entered into a Joint Memorandum of Settlement agreeing to a permanent alimony of Rs. 3,00,000, the return of property documents, and the withdrawal of a pending maintenance application under Section 125 Cr.P.C.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the parties had reached a comprehensive settlement and that there was no hope for a peaceful reconciliation as they had been living separately since 1990. The court noted that the payment of the agreed alimony was completed and the terms of the Joint Memorandum of Settlement were acceptable to both parties.
Issues:
Whether the marriage should be dissolved by decree of divorce based on the mutual settlement reached between the parties despite the conflicting judgments of the trial court and the High Court.
Ratio Decidendi:
When parties to a matrimonial dispute voluntarily enter into a comprehensive settlement agreement regarding alimony and the dissolution of marriage, and such settlement is executed, the court may set aside previous contrary orders to grant a decree of divorce in accordance with the parties' mutual consent.
Result:
The appeal was allowed, the order of the High Court was set aside, and the trial court's decree of divorce was restored.
JUDGMENT
Dr. AR. Lakshmanan, J.—Delay condoned.
2. Leave granted.
3. This appeal is directed against the final judgment/order dt.02.12.2003 passed in FMA No.1401 of 2000 by the High Court of Calcutta.
4. The appellant before us is the husband of the respondent herein. The appellant filed an application under Section 27(d) of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 in the City Civil Court at Calcutta being Matrimonial Suit No.268 of 1991 seeking divorce from the respondent alleging cruelty. Later, the suit was transferred to the Family Court, Calcutta and re-numbered as Matrimonial Suit No.103/1995. The suit filed by the appellant was decreed by the trial court. Aggrieved against the order of the trial court, the respondent filed F.M.A.No.1401 of 2000 in the High Court and the High Court by the impugned order, allowed the F.M.A. No.1401 of 2000. Hence, the present appeal has been filed in this Court. During the pendency of the appeal, we passed the following Order on 26.09.2006 :-
”After hearing both parties, we pass the following Order on 25.08.2006:-
“The Husband is the petitioner before us, who had filed the petition for divorce before the Family Court, which was allowed. Aggrieved against the said order, the respondent-wife filed an appeal before the High Court, which was allowed. Aggrieved against the order of the High Court, Husband has come up before us by way of filing the instant special leave petition.
It is now stated that though the marriage took place on 25.9.1987, the parties are not living together from 29.6.1990 onwards and there is no hope for the parties living together peacefully. The learned counsel for the respondent-wife has also submitted that living together hereafter by both parties is not possible, and therefore, if suitable compensation by way of permanent alimony is granted, an order can be passed dissolving the marriage. The learned counsel for the petitioner-husband offers a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- by way of permanent alimony to the respondent-wife in full and final settlement of the entire claim. The learned counsel for the husband further submits that the husband owns certain land and he can sell the land and pay money to the respondent-wife. For that, he needs some time. Since a proposal has been made today, we direct the learned counsel for the respondent-wife to ascertain the views of the respondent and then report to us. We direct both the parties to be present in person in this Court on 26th September, 2006. Post this matter on 26th September, 2006 (NMD).”
5. When the matter came up today for hearing, both the parties filed a Joint Memorandum of Settlement duly signed by all the parties and attested by the counsel appearing on either side. The same is taken on record. The Joint Memorandum of Settlement reads thus :-
”(1) That the petitioner-husband shall pay a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- (Three lacs only) in full and final settlement of all the claims of the wife towards permanent alimony within a period of 3 months or earlier by demand draft.
(2) That the respondent wife shall have no claim of any kind including any claim over the plot of land measuring 2 Kottah 1 Chhittak 15 sq.ft., Naihati No.168 in Dag No.68 under Municipal Corporation of Halishahar, Mauza: Balibhara, 24 Parganas (North), West Bengal under sub-Registry of Naihati, registered on 26.2.1988 (WB). The petitioner husband shall be exclusive owner in possession of the said land.
(3) That all original paper/document pertaining to the aforesaid plot of land which are in custody of the respondent wife shall be returned to the petitioner, within a period of 10 days from today.
(4) That the respondent - wife shall not create any obstruction in disposing of the said plot of land by the petitioner if he so desires.
(5) That the said amount of Rs.3 lacs by demand draft as permanent alimony shall be paid by the petitioner - husband to the respondent wife within a period of 3 months or earlier. On receipt of the said amount, the Criminal Revision Application pending before the Calcutta High Court, preferred by the respondent-wife against the order dt. 31.12.2004 passed in M.Case No.38/2000 (T.R.No.64/2000) by the IVth Judicial Magistrate, Barracpore, West Bengal under Section 125 Cr.P.C. shall stand withdrawn.
(6) That on payment of the said amount of Rs.3 lacs; the respondent wife shall not claim any future maintenance for her and/or for her daughter born out of the wedlock with her first husband.
(7) That while granting the leave, the instant appeal may be allowed and accordingly the decree of divorce may be granted on the above said terms.”
Place this matter on 09.01.2007 for reporting compliance.”
6. It is now represented by the learned counsel for the appellant that pursuant to the joint Memorandum of Settlement, a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- (three lacs) in full and final settlement of all the claims of the respondent-wife as a permanent alimony was paid to him by way of a demand draft. The learned counsel for the respondent-wife has also stated that he has received the demand draft for a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- (three lacs). The respondent, as per Memorandum of Settlement, shall not claim any future claim for her and her daughter who is residing with her first husband. In view of the settlement now reached between the parties, the order of the High Court impugned in this appeal is set aside and there will be a decree of divorce as ordered by the trial court in respect of the appellant and the respondent. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly. No costs.
Appeal disposed of accordingly.