P.K.LOHRA, J. - (1.) The instant appeal is filed by appellant-husband to challenge judgment and decree dated 03.04.2018, passed by Additional District Judge, Srikaranpur, District Sriganganagar (for short, 'learned trial Court') accepting the application of both the parties for divorce by mutual consent under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short, 'Act'). The learned trial Court, by the impugned judgment and decree annulled marriage of the spouses and awarded a lumpsum amount of permanent alimony and maintenance to respondent-wife to the tune of Rs.4,00,000. The appellant-husband was directed to pay the aforesaid amount within two months.
(2.) Succinctly stated, the facts of the case are that appellant and respondent tied their nuptial knot on 04.12.2006 as per Hindu-Sikh religion in Village 44 G.G., Srikaranpur, District Sriganganagar. After marriage, out of the wedlock, a daughter Navpreet Kaur was born on 14.01.2009. The matrimony continued streamlined for quite some time but thereafter some acrimony cropped-up between the parties. The misunderstanding between the spouses reached to its optimum level leading to lauching of criminal case at the behest of respondent-wife and finally both of them decided to call it a day by way of ending matrimony. In order to abate their misery perpetually, the spouses agreed to seek divorce by mutual consent and consequently a joint petition under Section 13-B of the Act was filed by them before the learned trial Court. Although, both the spouses were present at the time of presentation of the petition for divorce by mutual consent and first motion hearing but subsequently on second motion of hearing after six months, nothing turned out of the litigation, nor during the gestation period of six months consent was withdrawn by either of the parties. The proceedings of the petition for mutual divorce continued for yet another approximately four years and during interregnum learned trial Court made sincere endeavor to call the parties for reconciliation but all its efforts went in vain due to absence of the appellant. It is also noteworthy that after presentation of the petition for mutual divorce, both the spouses started living separately and virtually matrimonial relations reached to its vanishing point. At this stage, it would also be significant to notice here that when both the spouses agreed to dissolve the marriage by mutual consent by entering into compromise, in terms of the compromise, the prosecution launched at the behest of wife against appellant-husband for offence under Sections 498A and 406 IPC was also settled and the offences were compounded resulting in acquittal of the appellant.
(3.) Be that as it may, for the reasons best known to appellant, he did not attend second motion hearing, and therefore, learned trial Court, in absence of withdrawal of his consent, presumed his consent and passed the decree for divorce by mutual consent. While passing the decree, learned trial Court has placed reliance on Division Bench Judgment of Bombay High Court in case of Prakash Alumal Kalandari Vs. Mrs. Jahnavi Prakash Kalandari [AIR 2011 Bombay 119].;