Criminal Trident Pack: IPC, CrPC and IEA by Sr. Adv. G.S Shukla and Adv. Raghav Arora
LCI Learning

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

Divorce Deed

(Querist) 15 November 2008 This query is : Resolved 
Hello! Sirs
After such a long time V r meeting right
How U doing?

Would anybody can furnish me the proforma of Deed of Divorce? ( No Issues from the said Wedlock)
I hv already checked in files btit is not there.
I need this urgently Please

thank u
Srinivas.B.S.S.T (Expert) 16 November 2008
Madam Rekha. What type of divorce deed proforma you want? is it by way of a mutual consent, under the grounds of cruelty or under the grounds of adultery? Specify the same so that we can be of any help to you. Regards Srinivas BSST
Rekha..... (Querist) 16 November 2008
I m sorry sir i fogot to inform u that

I need mutully agreed Divorce Deed

Pl. urgently
Srinivas.B.S.S.T (Expert) 16 November 2008
O.P. /2008
The addresses of the Petitioners for the purpose of service of summons, notices etc. are as stated above.
III (a). The Petitioners submit that they are husband and wife and their marriage was solemnized on XXXXX at XXXXXX at the residence of the 1st Petitioner as per Hindu rites and caste customs. The marriage was consummated.
(b) It is submitted that later they lived together happily for quiet sometime at Desapatrunipalem and at Visakhapatnam. There are no issues out of the wedlock.
(c) It is submitted that after lapse one year some differences arose between the parties and from July, 2004 the Petitioner are living separately.
(d) The Petitioners submit that both of them last lived together in Visakhapatnam District within the limits of this Honourable Court and have been living separately since more than four years. The mediations held by friends, relatives and near & dear of the Petitioners for reconciliation but did not yielded any fruitful result.
(e) The Petitioners submit that there was no chance for reconciliation of the Petitioners due to psychological incompatibility and cultural differences. Petitioners submit that the matrimonial relationship between them is irretrievably broken and is beyond repair. As such, the Petitioners submit that at the intervention of the friends, well-wishers and relatives both of them came to a conclusion to have divorce by mutual consent.
(f) Petitioners submit that they are no claims and counter claims against each other, against person or property either movable or immovable, as the Petitioners are self-sustainable.
(g) The 1st Petitioner herein paid a sum of Rs. XXXXXX/- (Rupees XXXX XXXX Only) towards full and final settlement of past, present and future liability to the 2ndPetitioner. The 2nd Petitioner received the same and undertakes not to make any claims against the 1st Petitioner. The 1st Petitioner paid the above-referred amount at the time filing this petition and the 2nd Petitioner acknowledged the receipt of the same.
(h) The 2nd Petitioner submits that she undertakes that she will not claim any maintenance, alimony or other legal rights against the 1st Petitioner or his family members in respect of movable or immovable properties, in future after passing of the decree.
(i) The Petitioners also agreed and came to a conclusion that they have no objection to get married to any person of their choice after dissolution of marriage by decree of divorce.
(j) The Petitioners submits that they have returned the gifts exchanged at the time of marriage and there is no claims of any nature from either side with respect the gifts exchanged at the time of marriage
(k) The Petitioners submit that they have not filed any other application for divorce by mutual consent or any application seeking relief under matrimonial laws before any other court and there is no fraud and collusion between them in filing the present application.
(l) The Petitioners submit that there is no scope to live together. Hence this petition for divorce by mutual consent.
IV. Cause of action for this petition arisen on XXXXX when the marriage between the Petitioners solemnized at XXXXXXX and subsequently as misunderstandings arose between the Petitioners, from XXX the Petitioners are living separately and as the mediations by friends and well wishers were failed, the Petitioners were advised to take
Suresh Kr. Mitruka (Expert) 16 November 2008
The petition is to be filed in the Court of the Ld. District Judge, for getting the mutual divorce. The Court will hear the matter , after a period of 06 months from the date of filing of the petition and on such date,after six months, when both husband and wife, will depose before the Ld. Court and after hearing both the parties, the Court will pass the decree of divorce.
K.C.Suresh (Expert) 17 November 2008
Thank you srini
M. PIRAVI PERUMAL (Expert) 17 November 2008
I would like to inform that even before the expiry of the 6 months period, an interlocutory application can be filed to advance the hearing stating that the marriage is irretriavable broken down and hence the the statutory period of 6 months may be waived off. A lastest citation of Hon'ble Madras High Court is there. I think it will be helpful for you.
M. PIRAVI PERUMAL (Expert) 17 November 2008
Sorry mam i had missed to give you the citation details. The case of Madras High Court has been reported in 2008 (1) CTC 739. The Hon'ble Court has held that " REQUIREMENT OF SIX MONTHS PERIOD IS NOT MADATORY - PURPOSE OF LIBERALIZED COPET OF DIVORCE BY MUTUAL CONSENT WILL BE FRUSTRATED IF SECTION 13-B (2) IS READ AS MANDATORY ESPECIALLY IN CASE WHN THE PARTIES HAVE BEEN LIVING SEPERATELY FOR TWO YEARS AND THERE WAS NO CHANCE OF UNION". Kindly go through the full judgement and I hope it will be useful for your case. God bless.
Srinivas.B.S.S.T (Expert) 20 November 2008
F.A. No. 570 of 2000
Decided On: 12.11.2003
Appellants: Prabhat Shekhar
Respondent: Smt. Poonam Kumari
Hon'ble Judges:
P.K. Sinha, J.
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: Parmeshwar Prasad and Manoj Kr. Sinha, Advs.
For Respondents/Defendant: Diwakar Upadhayaya, Adv.
Subject: Family
Catch Words
Mentioned IN
Application allowed
Case Note:
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Section 13--Petition for divorce--Compromise decree for dissolution of marriage--A separation had already taken place not only physically but mentally also--Marriage broken down irretrievably--No cope to bring in any reconciliation between them--Any delay in granting - (SIC)freedom from the nuptial bonds, would only amount to keep the(SIC) mental stress--Granting of gap of six months period as provided untiv Section 13-B of the dispensed with--Hence, appellant granted divorce ana marriage dissolved.
P.K. Sinha, J.
1. This first appeal stems out of the judgment of the 1st Additional District Judge, Bhagaipur in Matrimonial Case No. 31 of 1992 in which the applicant, Prabhat Shekhar, had filed a petition for divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act ("the Act" in short) against his wife Smt. Poonam Kumari the respondent here.
2. Having considered the materials brought on the record and after having failed to bring in reconciliation between the husband and wife, by judgment dated 7-9-2000 the application for divorce was dismissed on contest but without cost. During pendency of this appeal the appellant and respondent filed a joint application under Order XXIII, Rule 3 of the respondent Code of Civil Procedure read with Section 13(B) of the Act. As per this application the appellant has withdrawn all the allegations of adulatery levelled against the respondent which was incorporated by way of amendment in the matrimonial petition in the lower Court and both pray that a compromise decree for dissolution of marriage be passed. The appellant further states in this application that he is not ready to proceed with further hearing of the appeal in case this compromise petition is allowed, both also agreeing to bear their own litigation costs. This was signed by the appellant as well by respondent and their Counsels.
3. When this matter was heard this Court called both husband and wife on 6-11-2003 in the Chambers to make an attempt to being in reconciliation between the two. Attempt to bring in reconciliation was made in camera in absence of their lawyers. As has been recorded in order dated 7-11-2003 the husband said that they had remained separate since October, 1991, the marriage having taken place. on 3-8-1991. The respondent also agreed that physically they had been living separately since two months after their marriage. Though she had found contested the application in the lower Court but in this Court she said that she felt that having been separated with her husband for so many years, and both sides having no incumberance meaning thereby that they were issuless, she strongly felt that a separation had already taken place, not only physically, but also mentally and so far she was concerned, the marriage had broken down irretrievably. Similar sentiments were also expressed by the appellant. Both of them said that now no reconciliation between them was possible and they had consented for dissolution of their marriage out of their own free will as continuing with the marriage would not serve arty purpose.
4. The attempt to bring in reconciliation having failed, on the application both sides were heard.
5. Such a petition under Section 13(B) of the Act ordinarily has to be presented before the District Court having jurisdiction to entertain that. However, the parties have fought this case since the year 1992 and 11 valuable years of their lives have been weathered away so far conjugal bliss is concerned. In the interest of justice as also taking into the consideration the

You need to be the querist or approved LAWyersclub expert to take part in this query .

Click here to login now

Similar Resolved Queries :

Post a Suggestion for LCI Team
Post a Legal Query