Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. On 29.05.2013, in Criminal Case No. 436 of 2013, the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Lucknow passed an ex-parte order under Section 125 Cr.P.C. granting interim maintenance to the wife. The application for setting aside the order dated 29.05.2013 moved by the husband (represented by Har Mandir Singh Sachdev, his father as well as his attorney holder) was rejected by the Family Court on 28.04.2015 on the ground that it was not moved by the husband himself.

4. The order dated 28.04.2015 was assailed by the husband (represented by his attorney holder Har Mandir Singh Sachdev) before this Court in Writ Petition No. 6148 (M/S) of 2015, Kanwaljeet Sachdev v. State of U.P. & Ors. During the pendency of the writ petition the petitioners resolved to settle their dispute amicably outside the Court. They also placed before this Court a draft settlement agreement. The petitioners, however, expressed their apprehension that in case they jointly filed a petition for mutual divorce, the Family Court may not entertain the petition unless the husband presented himself before the Court. On the apprehension so expressed, a learned Single Judge of this Court directed the husband to execute a fresh power of attorney in favour of his father.

5. On 02.05.2016, after a fresh power of attorney executed by the husband on 11.04.2016 before a notary public in California, Santa Clara County, USA in favour of his father was brought on record, the said writ petition was finally disposed of by this Court with liberty to the petitioners to move a joint petition for mutual divorce under Section 13-B of the Act, annexing therewith a draft settlement agreement filed by them before this Court. On behalf of the husband, his attorney-holder was permitted to sign and verify the pleadings of such petition in terms of the special power of attorney dated 11.04.2016 mentioned above. The husband was further directed to file an affidavit sworn before the notary public or before any other lawful authority in USA, where he was residing, containing his self attested photograph and verifying and attesting the contents of the joint petition. The attorney-holder of the husband was permitted to appear before the Court on his behalf. The Court below was directed to pass appropriate orders in the matter after verifying the veracity of the averments made in the petition. It was, however, left open to the Court below to ask for the personal appearance of the husband in case it had any doubt regarding the averments made in the petition.

6. On 05.05.2016, a joint petition under Section 13-B of the Act seeking mutual divorce was filed by the husband and wife before the Family Court, Lucknow in terms of the order dated 02.05.2016 passed by this Court. On 16.05.2016, the Principal Judge, Family Court, Lucknow before whom the case came up for admission, found that the documents filed by the petitioners along with the petition were not in accordance with the order dated 02.05.2016 passed by this Court. The Principal Judge, instead of permitting the petitioners to make good the deficiency, mechanically directed the parties to appear in person on the next date fixed.

26. In pursuance of the order dated 09.03.2017 passed by this Court, the wife, Smt. Navneet Kaur, appeared before this Court on 24.03.2017 and also filed a supplementary affidavit. She is an educated lady and is presently working as Consultant in Capgemini Bangalore, Ecospace, Bellandur, Bengaluru, Karnataka. Sri Harmandir Singh Sachdev, the power of attorney holder of the husband Sri Kanwaljeet Sachdev, was also present. Smt. Navneet Kaur reiterated her desire to get divorce. In the supplementary affidavit filed by her, she has reiterated the contents of the joint petition. Smt. Navneet Kaur, the wife, and Sri Harmandir Singh Sachdev, the power of attorney holder of her husband Sri Kanwaljeet Sachdev, have reiterated the contents of the joint petition and jointly stated that the petitioners had voluntarily filed the petition for mutual divorce. Thus, there is no allegation by either of the parties that the consent of the parties for grant of divorce by way of mutual consent is not voluntary or that there is any trace of threat or coercion.