- (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties. The matter was heard on 18.3.2009 and the following order was passed : On 4-3-2009 we heard the matter at length and we found it difficult for the parties to resume their conjugal life. Learned counsel appearing for the parties also expressed the same view. However, in course of argument, it was agreed by Mr. Mahesh Tewari, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-husband that the respondent will pay a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- and shall return all the articles which were given to him at the time of marriage. Today the respondent-husband and his father, who are present in the Court, changed their lawyer and engaged Mr. Mokhtar Khan. Mr. Mokhtar Khan who argued that the respondent is not in a positioin to fulfil the promise made on the last date. Today, supplementary affidavit has been filed by the appellant stating, inter alia, that the following articles were given to the respondent at the time of marriage : b" I. Rs. 1,51,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Fifty One Thousand) by cash; II. Three grams of gold worth Rs. 55,000/- (Fifty Fifty Thousand); III. One Hero Honda Motor Cycle worth Rs. 40,300/-(Rupees Forty Thousand and Three Hundred); IV. One set of brass utensils including dongs, jar, karahi, karchul, cholni, hundi and masala box worth Rs. 6000/- (Rupes Six Thousand); V. One steel set of utensils including drum etc. worth Rs. 2,300/- (Rupees Two Thousand and Three Hundred); VI. One full set of steel utensils including plates, lota, katora, kalash and other articles worth Rs. 1,500/- (Rupees One Thousand and Five Hundred); VII. One mixer machine worth Rs. 1,800/- (Rupees one Thousand and Eight Hundred); VIII. One steel almirah worth Rs. 3,600/- (Rupees Three Thousand and Six Hundred); X. Double bed, mattress, bed sheets and quilt worth Rs. 15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand); X. Rs. 30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand) towards the expenses of barat; XI. Rs. 9,800/- (Rupees Nine Thousand and Eight Hundred) towards the rent of dharmshala; XII. Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) towards the expenses of band; XIII. Rs. 3000/- (Rupees Three Thousand) towards the expenses of lights; XIV. Rs. 7,000/- (Rupees Seven Thousand) for the shirt, pant and suit; XV. Rs. 7,000/- (Rupees Seven Thousand) for the sarees; XVI. Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) for the shirt, pant of 25 baratis. We give one more chance to the respondent so that truth shall prevail on him and on his father and they could resolve the dispute forever. Put up this case on 27th March, 2009.
(2.) AT the very out set, we must clarify that there is typographical mistake in the second item of second paragraph i.e. Rs. 55,000/-. It appears that instead of Rs. 5,000/- it was wrongly typed as Rs. 55,000/-. However, respondent who appeared in person alongwith his father is not agree to return back the aforesaid article and/or value of the said article, we have no option but to dispose of the appeal on merit.
(3.) PRIMA facie, the impugned order and decree of divorce is erroneous in law. The divorce petition was filed on 1.5.2008 when the appellant-wife was living with the respondent-husband in the same house. Before issuance of summons, appellant was made to appear in the suit by the husband/respondent. The matter was ultimately referred to Lok Adalat. On 30.8.2008 a petition was filed for mutual divorce before the Lok Adalat. Before compliance of provision of Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act, the Lok Adalat passed the decree for divorce.;