1. This petition arises under very curious facts challenging the order of learned Principal District & Sessions Judge, Porbandar in Miscellaneous Appeal No.17 of 2008 below Exh.13, whereby reversing the order of Additional Senior Civil Judge, Porbandar in Regular Civil Suit No.16 of 2008 passed on 22.5.2008. The petitioner herein is the original plaintiff, who is the Civil Engineer and is doing the consultancy of Architectural planning and designing at Porbandar. As averred the respondent No.1 was serving as a Computer Operator in his office and they developed affection for each other, which resulted into marriage. Respondents No.2 to 4 being parents and relatives of respondent No.1, were not agreeable to their marriage. The petitioner and respondent No.1 solemnized the marriage under Hindu customs and rituals on 26.7.2007 and subsequently got the marriage registered in the office of Registrar of Marriage, Porbandar on 1.9.2007. Respondent No.1 also filed her written statement in the year 2007-08, where the name of the petitioner is shown as her husband. When the respondent Nos.2 to 4 came to know about the marriage, they did not allow respondent No.1 to meet the petitioner and, therefore, Miscellaneous Civil Application No.25 of 2008 was preferred under Section 97 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for issuance of search warrant and for getting custody of respondent No.1. On 17.1.2008, respondent No.1 remained present and showed her unwillingness to be with the petitioner herein. After recordance of her statement, the application was disposed of by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Porbandar.
2. Regular Civil Suit No.16 of 2008 was preferred for declaration and injunction against respondents and also temporary injunction in the said suit. The respondents filed written reply and denied the solemnization as well as registration of the marriage and alleged that signatures were obtained under coercion. The trial Court allowed the application in favour of the petitioner. However, the said order was reversed by the appellate Court, and, therefore, the challenge in this petition.
3. During the course of the hearing, it was noticed that there were marked difference in the age of the parties and the petitioner also had a daughter begotten out of his first marriage. Therefore, the Court requested learned advocates for the parties to ascertain from both the sides, the true nature of disputes and the possibility of amicable settlement. Appreciation needs to be placed on record for both the learned advocates, who acted as Court Officers to work out the consent terms, which have been reduced in writing and placed on record. This document of consent terms dated 26.3.2012 is permitted to be brought on record.
4. While contesting this petition the respondents had along objected to the registration of marriage 1.9.2007 and also disputed the relationship as averred in the petition. However, the fact remains that there is an averment of solemnization and registration of the marriage on record, and the respondents is unable to point out any fraud or illegality at this stage. Again, this being the matter of recordance of evidence and as the parties have already decided to bring an amicable end to the entire dispute, particularly, considering the age of the respondent No.1, by way of abundant caution, it would be desirable for the parties to approach the competent Court for preferring a decree of divorce by consent under the Hindu Marriage Act. When the parties shall approach the Court of competent jurisdiction for consent decree of divorce, the period of 6 months, as prescribed statutorily, may be waived, keeping in mind the peculiar facts of the present case and the trial Court is also requested to accord priority to such petition as may be moved and the same may be disposed of in accordance with law.
5. In the aforementioned terms, the petition is disposed of. In the case of any difficulty, either parties can approach this Court within 4 weeks from today.
(Ms. Sonia Gokani, J.) sudhir Top