- (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) THE marriage between the parties was solemnized at Village Katlaur, Tehsil Chamkaur Sahib, District Ropar by Anand Karaj ceremony on 15.1.2006. After marriage, the parties cohabited together at Village Barsalpur, Tehsil Chamkaur Sahib, District Ropar. From the marriage, they had a daughter namely Simarpreet Kaur, who was born on 27.11.2007. On account of matrimonial disputes between the parties, Gurjeet Kaur -first party on 26.4.2008 filed a petition seeking dissolution of the marriage between the parties by a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty. Her petition was dismissed by the learned District Judge, Ropar on 11.1.2010. Aggrieved against the same, she filed the appeal (FAO No.M -122 of 2010) in this Court. The appeal was admitted on 07.2.2011.
(3.) DURING the pendency of the appeal, Gurjeet Kaur -first party on 20.5.2013 stated that if the second party accepts her prayer for grant of a decree of divorce, she shall not claim any maintenance or permanent alimony for herself or for the minor child. Learned counsel for the second party prayed for time to seek instructions. The case was taken up on 02.7.2013 and Gurjeet Kaur -first party reiterated her statement. Learned counsel for the second party submitted that the second party -Sukhjinder Singh was in Bahrain and he had sent his General Power of Attorney dated 05.6.2013 authorizing his father Nirmal Singh son of Gurdev Singh to represent him in the present case and to compromise the matter. It was submitted that a joint petition in terms of Section 13 -B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 shall be filed for the grant of divorce by mutual consent. To enable the parties to file a joint petition, the case was adjourned to 16.7.2013. The first party filed CM No.14995 -CII of 2013 for placing on record the joint petition of the parties (CM No.14996 -CII of 2013) for seeking divorce by mutual consent. On 16.7.2013, the CM was taken up and during deliberations, Gurjeet Kaur -first party prayed for return of her dowry articles. Learned counsel for the second party submitted that they were in possession of certain articles as have been mentioned in the proceedings recorded on 16.7.2013, which are motor cycle, washing machine, television, 'petti' (box) containing bed sheets, suits, clothes etc., beds, sofa set, Godrej almirah and a dressing table. According to learned counsel for the first party, the gold items of the first party -Gurjeet Kaur were also with her in -laws. This, however, was denied by the learned counsel for the second party. The case was adjourned for consideration to 12.8.2013. On 12.8.2013, counsel for the first party on instructions from Gurjeet Kaur -first party stated that though the gold ornaments were with the second party, however, she did not press for the same as she wanted divorce. Learned counsel for the second party stated that the gold articles were not with second party -Sukhjinder Singh or his family. The other articles as are mentioned in the order passed on 16.7.2013 were with them and they were willing to return the same and would deliver them to the first party at her house at Village Katlaur, Tehsil Chamkaur Sahib, District Ropar, for which, the first party shall give a receipt. Accordingly, the case was adjourned to 21.8.2013.;