Punjab-Haryana High Court
Mukesh Kumar vs Smt. Anita on 20 April, 2012
Bench: Rajive Bhalla, Rakesh Kumar Jain
F.A.O.No.M-4086 of 2010 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
F.A.O.No.M-4086 of 2010
Date of Order: 20.04.2012
Mukesh Kumar
...Appellant
Versus
Smt. Anita
..Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN
Present: Mr. Hari Om Attri, Advocate
for the appellant
Mr. Mani Ram Verma, Advocate
for the respondent.
RAJIVE BHALLA, J (Oral)
The appellant- Mukesh Kumar, has filed this appeal, challenging order dated 12.05.2010, passed by the District Judge, Family Court, Bhiwani, dismissing his petition for dissolution of marriage.
During pendency of the appeal and with the able assistance of counsel for the parties, Mukesh Kumar and her wife Anita, have compromised the matter and filed separate affidavits, dated 20.04.2012, which are taken on record as Mark-'A' and Mark-'B', respectively. The affidavit filed by Mukesh son of Rajinder F.A.O.No.M-4086 of 2010 -2- Kumar, resident of House No.138/5, Sirsa Road, Opposite Birla Cotton Factory, Tehsil and District, Fatehabad, now resident of Khairthal, Tehsil Kishangarh Bass, District Alwar, reads as follows:-
"1. That the deponent had filed the present appeal against the judgment and decree dated 12.05.2010 whereby the Ld. D.J. (Family Court) had dismissed the petition under Section 13 of H.M. Act.
2. That the parties to marriage i.e. Appellant and respondent have now amicably compromised the matter and appellant is ready to cohabit with the respondent at his place of business and residence at Kairthal, Tehsil Kishangarh Bass, District Alwar.
3. That the respondent has agreed to withdraw all the pending litigation against the appellant including petition u/s 125 Cr.P.C. The respondent has agreed to a compromise for quashing of FIR No.158 dated 29.6.2007, Police Station Sadar Dadri, under Section 498-A, 406, 506, 34 IPC with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom.
4. That the appellant shall also withdraw the Criminal Revision No.2405 of 2010 pending before Hon'ble High Court against order of maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C.
5. That respondent Anita has agreed that she will not interfere in the life parents of appellant and other family member of appellant and she shall not have F.A.O.No.M-4086 of 2010 -3- any concern with the family temple at Geeta Colony-Fatehabad and shall vacate the same.
6. That respondent has also apolozied for her conduct and mistakes in the past and shall not repeat the same and shall stay with the matrimonial home of the appellant at Khairthal, Tehsil Kishangarh, Distt. Alwar.
CHANDIGARH Sd/- Mukesh(English)
DATED: 20.04.2012 DEPONENT
The affidavit filed by Anita w/o Mukesh Daughter of Krishan Kumar R/o Village Fatehgarh, Tehsil Charkhi Dadti, District Bhiwani, reads as follows:-
"1. That the appellant Mukesh had filed the present appeal against the judgment and decree dated 12.05.2010 whereby the Ld. D.J.(Family Court) had dismissed the petition under Section 13 of H.M. Act.
2. That the parties to marriage i.e. appellant and respondent have now amicably compromised the matter and Deponent/Respondent is ready to cohabit with the Appellant at his place of business and residence at Khairthal, Tehsil Kishangarh Bass, District Alwar.
3. That the deponent has agreed to withdraw all the pending litigation against the appellant including petition U/s 125 Cr.P.C. the Deponent/Respondent F.A.O.No.M-4086 of 2010 -4- has agreed to a compromise for quashing of FIR No.158 dated 29.06.2007, Police Station Sadar Dadri, under Section 498-A, 406, 506, 34 IPC with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom and shall make statement to this effect before the Courts of law.
4. That the appellant husband shall also withdraw the Criminal Revision No.2405 of 2010 pending before Hon'ble High Court against order of maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C.
5. That deponent/respondent Anita agree to not to interfere in the life of parents of appellant and other family members of appellant husband and she shall not have any concern with the family temple at Geeta Colony-Fatehabad and shall vacate the same.
6. That Deponent/Respondent has also apologized for her conduct and mistakes in the past and shall not repeat the same and shall stay with the matrimonial home of the appellant at Khairthal, Tehsil Kishangarh, District Alwar.
Chandigarh Sd/-Anita (English)
Dated:20.04.2012 Deponent"
Mukesh Kumar, appellant, present in Court, has been duly identified by his counsel Shri Hari Om Attri and states that he has affixed his signatures on affidavit, dated 20.04.2012 after F.A.O.No.M-4086 of 2010 -5- understanding its contents. Mukesh Kumar states that he has resumed co-habitation with his wife Anita and as they have resolved all their differences, he has no objection if the appeal is dismissed as withdrawn.
Anita, the respondent, present in Court, has been identified by her counsel Sh. Mani Ram Verma and states that she has affixed her signatures on affidavit dated 20.04.2012 after understanding its contents. Anita states that she has resumed co- habitation with her husband Mukesh and as they have resolved all their differences, she has no objection, if the appeal is dismissed as withdrawn.
Counsel for the parties pray that in view of the averments in the affidavits, dated 20.04.2012, filed separately by the parties and the statements made by the parties, the appeal may be dismissed as withdrawn.
We have heard counsel for the parties, perused their affidavits dated 20.04.2012, filed separately and are satisfied that parties have resolved their differences and are now living together as husband and wife, having put behind them this unfortunate chapter in their lives. The appellant and the respondent have undertaken to bring to an end all legal proceedings arising from their matrimonial differences including the present appeal.
In view of the contents of the affidavits and the statements made by the parties, who are present in person in Court, the appeal is dismissed as withdrawn. Both parties shall be bound, by the averments in their affidavits and shall also be obliged to F.A.O.No.M-4086 of 2010 -6- withdraw all such cases as may have been instituted by them or at their behest, within two months.
(RAJIVE BHALLA)
JUDGE
April, 20, 2012 (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN)
nt JUDGE