ANU BHANDARI versus PRADIP BHANDARI

Citation: [2018] 3 S.C.R. 576 · Decided: 05-03-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KURIAN JOSEPH · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
576
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 3 S.C.R.
ANU BHANDARI
v.
PRADIP BHANDARI
(Civil Appeal No. 2494 of 2018)
MARCH 05, 2018
[KURIAN JOSEPH AND
MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, JJ.]
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – s.13B – Divorce by mutual
consent – Appellant and respondent married in 1997, living
separately since March 2011, were involved in various civil as well
as criminal litigations – Application filed by parties u/s.13B also –
Held: After several efforts for settlement, finally the parties have
reached a settlement based on which they have sought divorce by
mutual consent – Having regard to the background of the litigation
and long separation between the parties, the parties have taken a
conscious decision uninfluenced by any extraneous factor, therefore
it is not necessary for them to wait for a further period of six months
– Accordingly, the marriage between appellant and respondent is
dissolved by a decree of divorce by mutual consent – In terms of the
settlement, the entire litigations between the parties are also put to
an end – Parties are directed to strictly abide by the terms of
settlement and are also restrained from instituting any fresh litigation
in respect of the subject matter without the leave of Supreme Court.
Family Courts Act, 1984 – s.9 – Duty of Court – Discussed.
Disposing of the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The parties have cooperated with the tireless
efforts taken by this Court. It is heartening to note that finally
the parties have reached an amicable settlement. The terms of
settlement have been stated in detail in Interlocutory Application
No. 19210 of 2018, based on which the parties have sought for
divorce by mutual consent. The said application shall form part
of this Judgment. Having regard to the nature of the cases and
having due regard to the settlement, it is in the interest of justice
that the entire litigations between the parties are also put an end
to, in terms of the settlement.[Paras 3, 4] [578-H; 579-A, C]
[2018] 3 S.C.R. 576
  576
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
577
1.2   As all the disputes have been settled, it is not necessary
to relegate the parties for another litigation before the Family
Court. The parties are present before Supreme Court. Having
regard to the background of the litigation and having regard to
the long separation between the parties, the parties have taken
a conscious decision, uninfluenced by any extraneous factor and
therefore, it is not necessary for them to wait for a further period
of six months.  Accordingly, the marriage between the appellant
and the respondent is dissolved by a decree of divorce by mutual
consent. They are directed to strictly abide by the terms of
settlement and are also restrained from instituting any fresh
litigation in respect of the subject matter without leave of this
Court. [Paras 9 and 10] [581-D-E]
2.  Under Section 9 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, the
Court has a duty to make an endeavour to assist and persuade
the parties in arriving at a settlement. Unlike many other
legislations, the Legislature has cast a duty on the Court in that
regard. The jurisdiction is not just to decide a dispute, on the
contrary, the court also has to involve itself in the process of
conciliation/mediation between the parties for assisting them not
only to settle the disputes but also to secure speedy settlement
of disputes. Such timely intervention of the court will not only
resolve the disputes and settle the parties peacefully but also
prevent sporadic litigations between the parties. [Para 14]
[582-C-D]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2494
of 2018.
From the Judgment and Order dated 11.04.2016 of the High Court
of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Civil Revision No. 3430 of
2014
 WITH
Civil Appeal No. 2495 of 2018.
Subramanium Prasad, Sr. Adv., Ms. Varuna Bhandari Gugnani,
Bhakti Vardhan Singh, Amit Kumar Pathak, Tushar Thareja, Vikas Singh
Jangra, Siddhartha Iyer, H. Pal Singh, Ms. Ruchi Kohli, Gaurav Gilhotra,
Ms. Rajitha (TH), Surinder Kumar Gupta, Advs. for the appearing
parties.
ANU BHANDARI v. PRADIP BHANDARI
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
578
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 3 S.C.R.
The  Judgment of the Court was delivered by
KURIAN, J. 1.  Leave granted.
 2.
 This is the rich encomium paid to the Court by Master Vibhu, the
ten year old son of the appellant and respondent. The little one present in
Court today is exuberantly happy and sought liberty to present a handmade
card expressing his joy on the settlement of all the disputes and lit

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.