Legal Services India - Law Articles is a Treasure House of Legal Knowledge and information, the law resources is an ever growing database of authentic legal information.
Legal Services India

» Home
Saturday, December 21, 2024

Supreme Court Passes First Divorce Decree Through Virtual Hearing

Posted in: Supreme Court
Sun, Jun 21, 20, 20:50, 5 Years ago
star star star star star
5 out of 5 with 1 ratings
comments: 0 - hits: 8802
Madhuri Jajoo vs. Manoj Jajoo has allowed the first petition for divorce by mutual consent, through the virtual hearing system.

In a fresh and significant development, the Supreme Court just recently on June 12, 2020 in exercise of its civil original jurisdiction in a noteworthy case titled Madhuri Jajoo vs. Manoj Jajoo in Transfer Petition (Civil) No. 833 of 2019 has allowed the first petition for divorce by mutual consent, through the virtual hearing system.

It is for this very reason that it will be remembered always in the days to come! It must be mentioned here that the Supreme Court Bench of Justice V Ramasubramanian in exercise of its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India passed the decree for dissolution of marriage by mutual consent in this notable case.

To put things in perspective, the petitioner-wife in the present case had approached the Apex Court through Advocate Rashmi Singhania seeking transfer of divorce petition filed by the respondent-husband , pending in the Family Court Judge, Kukkatpally, Ranga Reddy district, Telanagana to the District and Sessions Court, Alipore, Kolkata.

It merits mention that the matter was however referred to the Supreme Court Mediation Centre by an order dated September 23, 2019 pursuant to which the parties reached to an amicable settlement and then mutually sought dissolution of their marriage in terms of the settlement deed. It also must be mentioned here that when the matter was taken by Justice Ramasubramanian on June, the petitioner and the respondent were also present through the video-conferencing. The top court then disposed of the transfer petition, while recording the terms of the settlement.

To start with, it is first and foremost mentioned in this latest order that:
 This is a petition filed under Section 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking transfer of the divorce petition F.C.O.P. No. 2775 of 2018 pending on the file of the XV ADJ-cum-Family Court Judge, Kukkatpally, Ranga Reddy District, Telangana to the District and Sessions Court, Alipore, Kolkata.

As it turned out, it is then stated in this order that,  By an order dated 23.09.2019, this Court referred the parties to the Supreme Court Mediation Centre. The Supreme Court Mediation Centre conducted mediation and the parties have now reached to an amicable settlement. The settlement agreement dated 05.11.2019 reads as follows:

Settlement Agreement
This Settlement Agreement is entered into between Ms. Madhuri Jajoo W/o Mr. Manoj Jajoo D/o Shri Ramlal Mundhra R/o 5/7, Burra Shibtaila Main Road, Flat No. 3, Shailja Towers-1, Kolkata-700038 (hereinafter referred to as the 'First Party') and Mr. Manoj Jajoo R/o 102, Bharani Residence Plot 62-63, Green Hamlet Kondapur, Hyderabad-500081 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Second Party').

The marriage between the parties to the Settlement Agreement was solemnized as per Hindu rites and customs at Kolkata on 31.05.2001. That out of the said wedlock there is one female child, namely 'Saloni Jajoo' aged about 15 years, born on 15th October, 2004. Irreconcilable differences between the parties have caused the irremediable breakdown of their marriage and they separated on or about 06.04.2018 and since then have been living separately.

That vide order dated 23.09.2019 passed by Hon'ble Mr. Justice L Nageswara Rao and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Hemant Gupta, this matter was referred to the Supreme Court Mediation Centre.

That comprehensive mediation sessions collectively as well as separately were held between the parties on 27.09.2019, 23.10.2019 and today i.e. 05.11.2019 and the parties have voluntarily entered into a final settlement agreement on the following terms & conditions:

  1. Both the parties hereto confirm and declare that they have, voluntarily and of their own free will have decided not to live together as husband and wife and have arrived at this Settlement in the presence of the Mediator. Both the parties have decided to part ways by divorce through mutual consent for which the parties through their Advocates shall file appropriate application(s) before the next date of hearing in the Transfer Petition (C) No. 833/2019 pending adjudication before the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
     
  2. The parties shall jointly request and pray for divorce by mutual consent under Article 142 of the Constitution of India before Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and for withdrawing and quashing all cases filed by the parties against each other and their family members. The parties shall file a joint application before by 05.05.2020.
     
  3. In case the Hon'ble Supreme Court grants divorce under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, the second party shall pay an amount of Rs. 57,50,000 (Rupees Fifty Seven Lakh Fifty Thousand only) to the First Party in her name  Madhuri Jajoo  by way of Electronic Modes as full and final settlement on account of her stridhan, maintenance, alimony and future. This amount to be paid by the Second Party to the First Party. On or before 15.11.2019, the First Party shall intimate the bank account number and other RTGS details through Counsel/AOR to the second party/Counsel/AOR, in which the Second shall remit the said amount.

    The mode of payment is detailed as below:
    1. RTGS/Online Transfer for an amount of Rs. 25,00,000 (Rupees Twenty Five Lakh only) on or before 25.11.2019 to the First party Ms. Madhuri Jajoo.
    2. RTGS/Online Transfer for an amount of Rs. 16,00,000 (Rupees Sixteen Lakh only) on or before 05.02.2020 to the First party Ms. Madhuri Jajoo.
    3. RTGS/Online Transfer for an amount of Rs. 16,50,000 (Rupees Sixteen Lakh Fifty Thousand only) on or before 05.05.2020 to the First party Ms. Madhuri Jajoo.
       
  4. That the parties to the agreement agree and undertake to withdraw all the cases/FIR/Complaints etc. Or any other civil or criminal case pending against each other and their family members in any Court of Law or forum in India.

    The designation of the cases is given as under:
    1. A.C. No. 1601 of 2019 under Section 23 and 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 titled Madhuri Jajoo Vs. Manoj Jajoo & Ors. pending before ACJM, Alipore, Kolkata, West Bengal.
    2. ACM No. 274 of 2019 under Section 125 Cr.P.C., pending before the Ld. ACJM, Alipore, Kolkata, West Bengal filed by the First Party against the second party.
    3. FCOP No. 2775 of 2018 titled as Manoj Jajoo Vs. Ms. Madhuri Jajoo pending before the Ld.
    4. P.S. Case No. 53 of 2019, Police Station-Hehala, Kolkata, dated 28.02.2019 under Sections 498A, 406 and 34 of the IPC lodged by First party against the Second Party and his family members.
       
  5. Both parties agree that the Second Party will have permanent custody of the child namely Saloni Jajoo.
     
  6. However, the mother, First Party shall be entitled to have visitation rights to the child. The visitation shall be in accordance with the prior consent of the Second Party and also keeping in view the academic calendar and other obligation of the child. The First Party shall co-operate with the Second Party and the child in reference to any applications or documents for her academic purposes or otherwise.
     
  7. It is also agreed that both parties shall conduct themselves in proper manner and treat each other with dignity and shall not speak ill or cast any aspersions about each other.
     
  8. Both the parties agree and undertake that they have settled all their disputes and grievances amicably against each other and against their family members. Further, they shall not file any proceedings, whether criminal or civil against each other or their family members in any forum or stake any claim on the movable or immovable, joint or ancestral, self acquired or HUF properties of the either party or their family.
     
  9. It is agreed between the parties that they shall withdraw all the respective cases filed by them against each other and shall take all steps to put an end to all civil/criminal litigation existing between the parties.
     
  10. Both the parties undertake that henceforth they will not file any civil/criminal complaint or any case against each other or their family members with regard to the present matrimonial alliance/dispute.
     
  11. The party shall close the joint locker maintained at S.B.I., Kothagunda, Hyderabad on or before 15.12.2019. The First Party shall visit the said branch on or before 15.12.2019 with prior intimation to the Second Party and the Second Party shall also visit the said branch along with First Party to close the said joint locker. The contents of the locker, if any, shall belong to the First Party.
     
  12. By signing this agreement the parties hereto solemnly state and affirm that they have no further claims or demands against each other and all the disputes and differences have been amicably settled by the parties hereto through the process of Mediation.
     
  13. The parties undertake before this Hon'ble Court to abide by the terms and conditions set out in the above mentioned agreement, which have been arrived without any coercion, duress or collusion and undertake not to raise any dispute whatsoever henceforth.
     
  14. Terms of Settlement agreement have been read over and explained in detail to both the parties in English and vernacular language in the presence of their respective counsels present today during mediation.

That the parties are accordingly signing this settlement agreement in presence of all named above, to authenticate their will to comply the same as agreed above.
Be it noted, this order then envisages that,  Under the terms of the settlement, a joint application has been made by the parties in I.A. No. 52648 of 2020 praying for a decree of dissolution of marriage by mutual consent by invoking jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India.

To say the least, it is then stipulated in this order that,  Under the terms of the settlement, a sum of Rs. 57,50,000/- (Rupees fifty seven lac fifty thousand only) is liable to be paid by the respondent (husband) to the petitioner (wife). The learned counsel for the respondent states that the entire amount has been paid. This is also confirmed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner and the respondent are also present through the video conferencing. The petitioner wife Ms. Madhuri Jajoo confirmed the receipt of the entire amount.
Finally and far more importantly, before drawing the curtains, the order then concludes by holding that:

Therefore, the transfer petition is disposed of to the following effect:

  1. The marriage solemnized between the parties on 31.05.2001 shall stand dissolved by a decree of divorce by mutual consent.
  2. All the proceedings pending before all courts between the parties shall stand closed/disposed of/quashed in terms of the settlement agreement.
  3. Since the entire payment as recorded in the settlement agreement has been paid, the parties have no further or other obligations against each other.

The transfer petition is, accordingly disposed of.

Before parting, it must be said that this latest order will be remembered for a long time to come. The reasons have already been stated above. The Apex Court has passed the first divorce decree through virtual hearing in this latest judgment!

Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,
s/o Col BPS Sirohi, A 82, Defence Enclave,
Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera, Meerut – 250001, Uttar Pradesh.

Legal Services India

Comments

There are no comments for this article.
Only authorized users can leave comments. Please sign in first, or register a free account.
Share
Sponsor
About Author
Sanjeev Sirohi Advocate
Member since Apr 20, 2018
Location: Meerut, UP
Following
User not following anyone yet.
You might also like
In the light of the latest judgment provided by the SC for commuting the death penalty of former pm Rajiv Gandhi’s assassins to life imprisonment on the ground of excessive wait on govt and President’s part to decide their whim pleas
Shanti Bhushan v Supreme Court of India through its Registrar and another in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 789 of 2018 (Arising out of Diary No. 12405 of 2018) refused pointblank to declare that the function of allocating cases and assigning benches should be exercised by the collegium of five senior Judges instead of the Chief Justice of India.
Coming straight to the nub of the matter, let me begin at the very beginning by first and foremost expressing my full and firm support to the growing perfectly justified demand that seeks chemical castration for child rapists
Justice KS Puttaswamy (Retd) and another v Union of India has upheld the validity of Aadhaar for availing government subsidies and benefits and for filing income tax returns! The lone dissenting Judge in this landmark case is Justice Dr DY Chandrachud. He differed entirely from the majority and struck down Section 139AA.
It is most reassuring, refreshing and re consoling to note that for the first time in at least my memory have I ever noticed a Chief Justice of India who even before assuming office outlined his priorities very clearly and courageously
Manohar Lal Sharma vs Narendra Damodardas Modi dismissed a string of petitions seeking an independent probe into the 2015 Rafale deal, for registration of FIR and Court-monitored investigation by CBI into corruption allegations in Rafale deal.
Judgement by the Supreme Court about energy conservation and infrastructure laws in the state of Himachal Pradesh.
In a major and significant development, the Supreme Court which is the highest court in India has for the second time designated 37 lawyers as Senior Advocates.
On 17th October 2018, the Cannabis Act came into force and Canada became the largest country in the world with a legal marijuana marketplace.
Why Only Lawyers Are Held Liable For Accepting Foreign Funding And Not Politicians? Why is it that under our Indian law only lawyers are held liable for accepting foreign funding and not politicians? Why politicians are mostly never held accountable for accepting foreign funding?
Finally Hindus Get The Right To Worship At Entire Disputed Land And Muslims Get 5 Acre In Ayodhya
I am a student at New Law College, Bharati Vidyapeeth University studying LLB. I am currently majoring in 3 yrs LLB Course from New Law College, and have started with my last year from July 2019.
230th report of Law Commission of India, it will certainly produce more diamonds like the Chief Justice of India designate Sharad Arvind Bobde who is most invaluable and even Kohinoor diamond stands just nowhere near him
Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court Of India vs Subhash Chandra Aggarwal the office of Chief Justice of India is a public authority under the Right to Information Act
Sections 126 to l29 deal with the privilege that is attached to Professional Communications between the legal advisors and their clients. Section 126 and 128 mention the circumstances under which the legal advisor can give evidence of such professional communication.
National Federation Of Societies For Fast Justice & Anr. Vs. UOI Notifications for establishing the Gram Nyayalayas to issue the same within four weeks.. It was considering a PIL filed by National Federation Of Societies For Fast Justice.
Reepak Kansal vs. Secretary-General, Supreme Court Of India has taken a stern view of the increasing tendency to blame the Registry for listing some cases more swiftly as compared to others.
upheld the Shebait rights of the erstwhile royals of Travancore in the administration, maintenance and management of Sree Padmanabhaswamy Temple in Thiruvananthapuram.
Justice R Banumathi had assumed the role of a Supreme Court Judge on 13 August 2014. She is the sixth women to be a Judge of the Supreme Court of India
Judges cannot speak out even if they are humiliated. How long can the Supreme Court and the Judges suffer the humiliation heaped regularly?
Neelam Manmohan Attavar vs Manmohan Attavar that a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution would not be maintainable in order to challenge an order which has been passed by the High Court in the exercise of its judicial powers.
Jugut Ram vs. Chhattisgarh the fact that a lathi is also capable of being used as a weapon of assault, does not make it a weapon of assault simpliciter.
Sagufa Ahmed vs. Upper Assam Plywood Products Pvt. Ltd the said order extended only the period of limitation and not the period upto which delay can be condoned in exercise of discretion conferred by the statute
the legendary Kesavananda Bharati whose plea to the Apex Court is considered the real reason behind the much acclaimed Basic Structure doctrine propounded in 1973
Amar Singh vs NCT Of Delhi conviction can be based on the testimony of a single eye witness so long he is found to be wholly reliable.
Madhya Pradesh vs. Bherulalthe governments taking for granted the period of limitation prescribed. In other words, it is high time and all the governments in our country both in the Centre and the States must now
Madhya Pradesh vs. Bherulal the governments taking for granted the period of limitation prescribed.
the manner in which Bombay High Court handled the Arnab Goswami case. A vacation Bench comprising of Justices Dr DY Chandrachud and Indira Banerjee of the Supreme Court is currently hearing the petition filed by Republic TV anchor Arnab Goswami
Indian Olympics Association vs. Kerala Olympic Association civil original jurisdiction dismissed Indian Olympics Association's (IOA) plea seeking transfer of a writ petition before Kerala High Court to Delhi High Court.
In Arnab's case, Justice Dr DY Chandrachud had minced no words to say that: There has to be a message to High Courts – Please exercise your jurisdiction to uphold personal liberty
It is most shocking, most disgusting and most disheartening to read that criminals are ruling the roost and making the headlines in UP time and again
Parveen vs. State of Haryana while setting aside an order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissing the plea of a man in view of absence of his counsel has observed in clear, categorical
Madras Bar Association vs Union of India that exclusion of advocates in 10 out of 19 tribunals, for consideration as judicial members is contrary to the Supreme Court judgments in Union of India v. Madras Bar Association
Inderjeet Singh Sodhi vs Chairman, Punjab State Electricity Board the dismissal of special leave petition is of no consequence on the question of law. We all must bear it in mind from now on
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Zaixhu Xie the practice of pronouncing the final orders without reasoned judgments.
It cannot be denied by anyone that government is the biggest litigator in courts and is responsible to a large extent for the huge pending cases in different states all across the country. The top court is definitely not happy with the state of affairs and the lethargic and complacent motto of Sab Chalta Hain attitude of the governments in India.
Centre has finally decided to get its act together and constitute the All India Judicial Service (AIJS) about which we have been hearing since age
Prashant Dagajirao Patil vs. Vaibhav@Sonu Arun Pawar a High Court, while exercising bail jurisdiction cannot issue directions which will have a direct bearing upon the trial.
Commercial Taxes Officer, Circle-B, Bharatpur vs M/s Bhagat Singh in exercise of itsextraordinary appellate jurisdiction that a statute must be interpreted in a just, reasonable and sensible manner
Pravat Chandra Mohanty vs Odisha refused the plea seeking compounding of offences of two police officers accused in a custodial violence case.
Sessions Judge, Bhadrak in S.T. Case No.182/392 of 2014, acquitting the Respondents from charges under Sections 302/201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code IPC
Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. vs. M/S Navigant Technologies Pvt. Ltd. the period of limitation for filing the Petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act would commence from the date on which the signed copy of the award was made available to the parties.
Niranjan Hemchandra Sashittal and another v. Maharashtra in page 386 of the citation that: The quantum of bribe is immaterial for judging gravity of the offence under PC Act. Proceedings under PC Act cannot be quashed on the ground of delay in conclusion particularly where the accused adopted dilatory tactics.
The Ministry of Information and Broadcasting has proposed to introduce the Cinematograph (Amendment) Bill, 2021.The new proposal would amend the Cinematograph Act of 1952 to grant the Centre "revisionary powers" and allow it to "re-examine" films that have already been certified by the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC).
I have not come across a single person in my life who has not complained of milk being not up to the mark and even in my own life I don't remember how many times my mother
Akhila Bharata Kshatriya Mahasabha v/s Karnataka barring installation of statues or construction of any structure in public roads, pavements, sideways and other public utility places.
Manohar Lal Sharma vs Union of India has made it clear that State won't get a free pass by mere mention of national security.
State of MP vs Ghisilal the civil courts has no jurisdiction to try suit relating to land which is subject-matter of ceiling proceedings, Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976.
Deserving cases in Supreme Court also don't get listed in time and keep pending for a long time and not so deserving cases get listed most promptly when backed by eminent law firms and senior lawyers
Top