Aparna Mehta Kapur
& ANR. Vs. State of U.P. & ANR.  INSC 70 (16 January 2009)
JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No.256 of 2008 Aparna Mehta Kapur & Anr.
.....Appellant(s) Versus State of U.P. & Anr. .....Respondent(s) ORDER By
this writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, the
petitioner-wife seeks directions to: (i) respondent No. 2-husband to settle all
the pending matters amicably in the interest of the minor child, petitioner No.
2 herein and (ii) the Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Gautam Budh Nagar. Noida to
regard to the nature of the reliefs prayed for by the petitioners, perhaps this
petition was not the proper remedy but realising that dismissal of the petition
would result in procrastination of great strain to the spouses because of
pendency of several cases against each other and the trauma their 13 year old
daughter was going through, we entertained the petition.
However, since petitioner
No. 1 was appearing in person, we requested Ms. Kamini Jaiswal, Advocate to
assist us in the matter. While issuing notice to the respondents on 11th
August, 2008, it was directed that
respondent No. 2
(Husband) shall remain present in Court on the next date of hearing. When the
matter was taken up for consideration on 29th September, 2008, it was felt that
it would be appropriate if the case is referred to the Mediation Centre at
Delhi High Court and an attempt is made to resolve the disputes between the
Pursuant to the said
order, the parties appeared before the learned Mediator, who interacted with
the parties on several dates and, ultimately, vide her report dated 11th
December, 2008, apprised this Court about the progress in those proceedings. it
was reported that though substantial progress had been made in settlement of
disputes between the parties, there were still some areas of concern which were
yet to be addressed. Nevertheless, as per the report, a draft settlement agreement
had been circulated to the parties and their counsel for their consideration.
Ultimately, the learned Mediator filed her final report on 5th January, 2009,
reporting that even though a final settlement between the parties had been
arrived at, but the parties had certain apprehensions on the settlement in
regard to the visitation rights to the father which could be cleared with the
intervention of this Court. An unsigned copy of the settlement agreement
between the parties was filed with the report.
On 7th January, 2009,
when the matter came up for consideration of the final report submitted by the
learned Mediator, learned counsel for the parties stated that the terms of
settlement, incorporated in the draft settlement agreement, dated December 28,
2008, were acceptable to their respective clients, and they would ensure that
all these are adhered to in letter and spirit. Learned counsel sought time to
file a proper affidavit/document setting out the consent terms so that the
matter could be disposed of in terms thereof, which has been done. We have
heard learned counsel for the parties.
In view of the fact
that an amicable settlement has been arrived at between the contesting parties,
it is unnecessary to advert to the facts giving rise to the filing of the
present petition. What needs to be noted is that with the untiring efforts of
the learned Mediator, the wife (petitioner No.1) and the husband (respondent
No.2) have resolved their differences amicably and have filed a signed application
praying that this Court may be pleased to record the settlement and dissolve
the marriage between them by a decree of divorce by mutual consent; the period
under Section 13 B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter for short `the
Act) be dispensed with and ...4/- :4:
initiated by them against each other may be quashed. The application is signed
by both the said parties and is supported by their affidavits.
Both the parties, are
present in Court and have been identified by their counsel.
They re-affirm that
they have entered into the settlement without any pressure or coercion from any
We have perused the
terms of the settlement. It seems to be bona fide and therefore there is no
impediment in accepting the same to put an end to acrimonious disputes between
exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution we allow
I.A. No.1/2009; take the said settlement on record; dispense with the notice
period under Section 13 B of the Act and pass a decree of divorce for
dissolution of marriage solemnised between petitioner No. 1 and respondent No.
2 by mutual consent. The said parties shall remain bound by the terms of the settlement.
We further direct that all pending cases/complaints, particularly arising out
of FIR No. 221/2003 (u/s 498A, 323, 504, 506/IPC and 3/4 of the Prohibition of
Dowry Act 1961), Case Crime No. 263/2003, P.S. Section 39, Noida) shall stand
Before parting with
the case, we wish to place on record our appreciation for the efforts made by
Ms. Sadhana Ramchandran, the learned Mediator; Ms. Kamini Jaiswal, the learned
Amicus Curiae; Mr. Kirti Uppal and Mr. Jatinder Mohan Sharma, learned counsel
for the parties, without whose active and meaningful cooperation perhaps even
the second attempt for settlement would not have been possible.
The writ petition
stands disposed of in the above terms.
[ D.K. JAIN ]
[ R.M. LODHA ]