On September 16, 2025, Patna High Court delivered seven judgements in Kripa Shankar Dwivedi vs. Seema Devi, Nandu Rai vs. The State of Bihar, Km. Prerna Tiwari vs. The State of Bihar, Nawdip Chand Singh vs. The State of Bihar, Mamta Mishra vs. The State of Bihar, Anshu Ranjan,Proprietor of Android Store vs. The State of Bihar through the Addl. Chief Secretary, Home Dept.P.S.Sachivalaya, District-Patna and Roshan Khatoon vs. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Bihar.
High Court's Division Bench of Justices Bibek Chaudhuri and Dr. Anshuman delivered a 7-page long judgement in Kripa Shankar Dwivedi vs. Seema Devi (2025), wherein, it observed: ''After hearing the parties, it transpires to this Court that the parties have reached on the settlement and jointly prayed that the decree of divorce may be approved as parties are not interested to live together and full and final settlement amount has already been received by the respondent. In the light of the submissions made, without entering into merit and demerit of the appeal, we hereby approve the order and decree for divorce dated 10.12.2009 and 06.01.2010 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Jehanabad in Matrimonial Case No.31 of 2009 after setting aside the order dated 28.10.2016 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Jehanabad in Misc. Case No.32 of 2011. 10. It is made clear that this order has been passed only due to the reason that parties have reached on settlement and they do not want to pursue their litigations further. With the aforesaid observation, the present miscellaneous appeal is hereby allowed.'' Justice Dr. Anshuman authored the judgement.
The appellant's counsel submitted that the appellant had filed a Matrimonial Case in 2007 under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restoration of conjugal life which was allowed in favour of the appellant vide order and decree dated May 16, 2008 and May 22, 2008 respectively, by which respondent was directed to live with the appellant, but she did not agree to live with the appellant. Thereafter, the appellant filed a Matrimonial Case in 2009 for grant of decree of divorce against the respondent on the ground of desertion which was allowed in his favour vide order and decree dated December 10, 2009 and January 6, 2010 respectively.
The counsel for the appellant also submitted that after waiting period of appeal, the appellant solemnized marriage with one Sweta Kumari on October 7, 2010 and now the appellant have two children, one son and one daughter with Sweta Kumari. He submitted that after marriage of appellant with Sweta Kumari the respondent (Divorcee) filed a Misc. Case on September 7, 2011 for setting aside the orders and decrees passed in the Matrimonial Case of 2007 (for restitution) and in Matrimonial Case of 2009 (divorce case) which was allowed vide order dated October 28, 2016 which is the impugned order in the appeal.
The appellant's counsel submitted that in addition to these cases, respondent had also filed Complaint Case in 2011 before the S.D.J.M., Arwal. He submitted that in the Misc. Appeal vide order dated March 2, 2017 ad interim stay was granted in his favour vide order dated March 2, 2017, by which the order dated October 28, 2016 passed in Misc. Case of 2011 was stayed. He submitted that litigation between the parties was further carried in a Criminal Revision of 2016 in which vide order dated March 15, 2023 passed by the High Court, all disputes were settled upon one time payment of Rs.17,00,000/ by the petitioner of Criminal Revision (present appellant) to O.P. No.2 of the said Criminal Revision (present respondent). The operative part of the order states as follows:“Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in compliance of order dated 14.03.2023, a counter-affidavit has been filed by O.P. No.2 by which it transpires that she is agreed to settle all the disputes in one time upon payment of Rs. 17 lacs from the petitioner. In the affidavit, it has been categorically mentioned that the said amount be transferred in the saving account of O.P. No.2 bearing Account No. 37707852075 of SBI, Sipara Branch, Patna. It was also been accepted by O.P. No.2 that she will do all the needful to close Complaint Case No. 65 of 2011 and the Misc. Case No. 32 of 2011 pending before the court of learned S.D.J.M., Arwal and Principal Judge, Family Court, Jehanabad."
The petitioner's counsel submitted that he had filed a Misc. Appeal in 2016 before High Court in which stay was granted in Misc. Case No. of 2011. He submitted to the High Court that a direction may be given to O.P. No.2 that at the time of hearing Misc. Appeal of 2016, she shall support and do all needful so that the entire dispute that is Matrimonial Case of 2007 and Divorce Case bearing Matrimonial Case No. 31 of 2009 may also be closed. The counsel for O.P. No.2 agreed for the same.
The Court observed: "In this view of the matter and on the basis of the affidavit and submission made, this case was hereby settled and there was no dispute from any corner left between the parties. Both parties assured to the court that they shall respect all undertakings/affidavits before the High Court, by their counsel. It was made clear that the said amount Rs. 17 lacs shall be paid in the account of O.P. No.2 by the petitioner within 4 months in installment. It was also made clear that till final payment, he shall deposit monthly Rs.10,000/-. The process of closing the case shall be started upon receiving the amount in the account. O.P. No.2. It was assured by O.P. No.2 that in no way, she shall proceed in any manner in the complaint case against petitioner before the S.D.J.M., Arwal."
The respondent's counsel submitted that the full and final settlement had already taken place and as per pleading that after decree of divorce appellant entered into marriage and respondent also did not want to pursue the litigation.
Both counsels for the appellant and the respondent submitted to the High Court that the order of divorce may be revived as settlement took place between the parties and respondent had no objection for the same. The counsel for the respondent also submitted that the revival of order of divorce be made by setting aside the order dated October 28, 2016 passed in Miscellaneous Case of 2011, she (respondent) had no objection for the same.
No comments:
Post a Comment