A wife filed a petition and sought relief of dissoloution of marriage on the ground of cruelty. Husband opposed the petiton and filed a counter claim under S.23A and sought relief of dissoloution of marriage on the ground of cruelty.
As both the parties have sought the same relief, can not the court straight away grant the relief to the parties and dispense with the trial?
Is the court still required to conduct a trial to find out which of the two was cruel before granting the relief?
wow excellent que. too similar to my case. 4 yrs back my wife filed for divorce S. 13 (1) (ia) (ib) and I filed for divorce U/s. 23 A HMA as well as a seperate application few months after U/s. 151 CPC asking for same relief but not accepting to her cruelties.
We later converted our respective application to S. 13 B by becoming joint petitioners to MCD. At time of first statement recording she hesitated under the (whisper) influence of her then counsel and said to court to give her time to think about it.
BTW the meter of coolign period started once we filed MCD It took her 12 months to think about giving recored consent and then after 12 months I filed Memo to Court to ask both petitioners if we still want to go MCD route. During those days Court refused askign this que. base don my Memo to Court, resulting me out of frustration to withdraw my consent from such MCD and I said let us now contest it :-) Well just 1 week after my unilateral withdrawl of MCD pops a judgment from Hon'ble SC that it is must for the Court to ask consent of parties in MCD but I was 1 week late there :-)
Now since I converted my S. 23 A into S. 13 B I recently once again filed S. 23 A with new facts by simultaneously pleading U/O 8 R 2 CPC 'new facts" thereby setting fresh cause of action since I am defendent to her divorce petiotion.
More news soon anyhow our marriage is under hard volcano mud rocks so all trial errors and "fault theory" based proceedings rutt I am forced to experiment before court, I will update soon the climax as I hv no other options other than to be at mercy of trial courts application of mind. That is why I wonder if law is n the Books or in the minds of various Lordships and/or as they may please at the end of the day :-)
Even under O.23 R.3 Compromise has to be presented before the Court who will then pass a Consent decree.
Besides after introduction of 13B Consent/agreement/compromise is not unlawful under the contract act. If the trial court pass such a consent decree under O.23 R.3 can it be faulted? If so what are the grounds on which you would find fault with such a decree?