Daily Archives: June 2, 2007

Legal Aid, who else can get (other than FEMINISTS)

Dear Original poster

Thanks for your post on “..Legal Aid, who else can get (other than FEMINISTS)..”

As you may be aware, most FALSE 498a case victim husbands are

– middle class or above middle class,

– qualified / professional qualified,

and

– law abiding citizens,

I find them NOT eligible for legal aid.

However women are eligible irrespective of their income or economic status

Is my understanding right ?

Thanks in advance for your reply and time

regards

vinayak

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Legal Aid, who else can get (other than FEMINISTS)

Posted by: “skmd131”

Q1. What is legal aid ?

Legal aid means to provide legal services free of cost to the weaker section of the society and to organize Lok Adalats, as to promote justice by the legal procedure on basis of equal opportunities.

Q2. What is legal aid Scheme ?

By virtue of the powers conferred under sub section (g) of Section 2 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, the Central Authority or State Authority or District Authority may make schemes for giving effect to any of the Provisions of this Act.

Q3. Who are entitled to avail legal aid under this scheme ?

Section 12 in chapter – IV of the Legal services Authority Act.1987 Section 12 in Chapter IV of the Legal Services Act, 1987 details the particulars of the persons who are entitled to get free legal aid. They are:

1) Members of a Scheduled Caste or Schedule Tribe;

2) Victims of trafficking inhuman beings or beggar as referred to in article 23 of the Constitution of India ;

3) Woman and children;

4) Persons with disability as defined in clause (i) of section 2 of the persons with disabilities (Equal opportunities Perfection of Rights and full participation) Act, 1995. (As amended)

5) Victims of a mass disaster, ethnic violence, caste atrocity, flood, drought, earth quake or industrial disaster; or

6) Industrial workmen ; or

7) Persons in custody, including custody in a protective home within in the meaning of clause of section 2 of the Immoral traffic Prevention) Act,1956 or in a juvenile home within the meaning of clause (j) of section 2 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 in psychiatric hospital or psychiatric nursing home within the meaning of clause (g) of section 2 of the Mental Health Act, 1987 ; or

8) Persons whose annual income is less than Rs.50,000/-

Comment inserted by Blogger : I think this singular clause will dis entitle EVERY middle class, upper middle class, law abiding, qualified hubby, hit by 498a. Alas !! they are the largest number of husbands hit by FALSE 498A

Q4. Is there any exception in Connection with the limit of income ?

As mentioned before there is no bar of limit of income to the members of SC, ST women or children or other special categories listed under Section 12 of the Act, and stated above

Q5. In what nature of cases one cannot avail legal aid ?

Generally the person is entitled to avail legal aid without any bar under the amended Act. But according to discretion, it is also observed that it should not result into promoting the evils of the society.

Q6. I there any particulars set up established for the Legal Aid ?

Well planned set up has been arranged at several levels.They are: 1) National Legal services authority at the national level. 2) State legal services authority at the state level. 3) Legal services committees at the High Court and supreme court level. 4) District legal services committee at District level. 5) Taluka Legal services Committee at Taluka level. The District Judge and the Taluka Court Judge are to be chairperson of the District legal service Committee and the Taluka legal service committee.

Q7. What procedure should be followed to avail legal aid ?

The Person in need of legal aid may contact the office of the State Legal Services Authority / Taluka Legal Services Committee officers concerned. He/She is helped by the officials in the event of difficulties the Assistant Secretary or the Member Secretary could he contact.

Q8. Who can issue the certificate from income ?

Certificate of income is not necessary in all the cases. Even a mere affidavit may be sufficient, if the Authority is satisfied that there is a prima facie case.

Q9. In what nature of cases, one can avail legal aid ?

Generally, in all civil, criminal and labour cases, one can get legal aid.

Q10. What kind of legal aid may be availed ?

The legal services committee or Authority makes provision to import guidance by an advocate from legal the panel of the legal experts. The committee or Authority incurs the expense of typing court fee or verification of the copies and fee for the advocates.

Legal Aid, who else can get (other than FEMINISTS)

Dear Original poster

Thanks for your post on “..Legal Aid, who else can get (other than FEMINISTS)..”

As you may be aware, most FALSE 498a case victim husbands are

– middle class or above middle class,

– qualified / professional qualified,

and

– law abiding citizens,

I find them NOT eligible for legal aid.

However women are eligible irrespective of their income or economic status

Is my understanding right ?

Thanks in advance for your reply and time

regards

vinayak

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Legal Aid, who else can get (other than FEMINISTS)

Posted by: “skmd131”

Q1. What is legal aid ?

Legal aid means to provide legal services free of cost to the weaker section of the society and to organize Lok Adalats, as to promote justice by the legal procedure on basis of equal opportunities.

Q2. What is legal aid Scheme ?

By virtue of the powers conferred under sub section (g) of Section 2 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, the Central Authority or State Authority or District Authority may make schemes for giving effect to any of the Provisions of this Act.

Q3. Who are entitled to avail legal aid under this scheme ?

Section 12 in chapter – IV of the Legal services Authority Act.1987 Section 12 in Chapter IV of the Legal Services Act, 1987 details the particulars of the persons who are entitled to get free legal aid. They are:

1) Members of a Scheduled Caste or Schedule Tribe;

2) Victims of trafficking inhuman beings or beggar as referred to in article 23 of the Constitution of India ;

3) Woman and children;

4) Persons with disability as defined in clause (i) of section 2 of the persons with disabilities (Equal opportunities Perfection of Rights and full participation) Act, 1995. (As amended)

5) Victims of a mass disaster, ethnic violence, caste atrocity, flood, drought, earth quake or industrial disaster; or

6) Industrial workmen ; or

7) Persons in custody, including custody in a protective home within in the meaning of clause of section 2 of the Immoral traffic Prevention) Act,1956 or in a juvenile home within the meaning of clause (j) of section 2 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 in psychiatric hospital or psychiatric nursing home within the meaning of clause (g) of section 2 of the Mental Health Act, 1987 ; or

8) Persons whose annual income is less than Rs.50,000/-

Q4. Is there any exception in Connection with the limit of income ?

As mentioned before there is no bar of limit of income to the members of SC, ST women or children or other special categories listed under Section 12 of the Act, and stated above

Q5. In what nature of cases one cannot avail legal aid ?

Generally the person is entitled to avail legal aid without any bar under the amended Act. But according to discretion, it is also observed that it should not result into promoting the evils of the society.

Q6. I there any particulars set up established for the Legal Aid ?

Well planned set up has been arranged at several levels.They are: 1) National Legal services authority at the national level. 2) State legal services authority at the state level. 3) Legal services committees at the High Court and supreme court level. 4) District legal services committee at District level. 5) Taluka Legal services Committee at Taluka level. The District Judge and the Taluka Court Judge are to be chairperson of the District legal service Committee and the Taluka legal service committee.

Q7. What procedure should be followed to avail legal aid ?

The Person in need of legal aid may contact the office of the State Legal Services Authority / Taluka Legal Services Committee officers concerned. He/She is helped by the officials in the event of difficulties the Assistant Secretary or the Member Secretary could he contact.

Q8. Who can issue the certificate from income ?

Certificate of income is not necessary in all the cases. Even a mere affidavit may be sufficient, if the Authority is satisfied that there is a prima facie case.

Q9. In what nature of cases, one can avail legal aid ?

Generally, in all civil, criminal and labour cases, one can get legal aid.

Q10. What kind of legal aid may be availed ?

The legal services committee or Authority makes provision to import guidance by an advocate from legal the panel of the legal experts. The committee or Authority incurs the expense of typing court fee or verification of the copies and fee for the advocates.

Transfer Petition civil 228 of 2004 – Sanghamitra Ghosh V Kajal Kumar Ghosh

From the Judis Database

=====================================

Transfer Petition civil 228 of 2004 – Sanghamitra Ghosh V Kajal Kumar Ghosh

PETITIONER: Sanghamitra Ghosh

RESPONDENT: Kajal Kumar Ghosh

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 20/11/2006

BENCH: G.P. MATHUR & DALVEER BHANDARI

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T

WITH TP (CRL.) NOS.105 & 171 OF 2004, TP (CIVIL) NO.727 OF 2004 AND TP (CIVIL) NO.168 OF 2006.

Dalveer Bhandari, J.

The marriage of the petitioner was solemnized on 8.11.1999 with the respondent as per Hindu rites and customs and was duly registered with the Registrar of Marriage. The parties have closely known each other before marriage and the marriage was solemnized according to the wishes of the petitioner and the respondent.

A male child was born out of the wedlock but, unfortunately, the parties did not have a smooth marital life. According to the allegations of the petitioner, Sanghamitra Ghosh, she was physically and mentally tortured by the respondent and his parents.

According to her, the degree of torture increased day by day and eventually on 14.1.2001 she was driven out of the marital home along with her minor child. Thereafter, the petitioner moved to her parents and started with them from 15.1.2001. The respondent never cared to inquire about the petitioner and her child and has never sent any money either for the maintenance of the petitioner or her child.

In these circumstances, she was forced to file a criminal complaint on 4.8.2002 under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

According to the version of the petitioner, she was totally dependant on her father, who himself was very old and was suffering from cancer and a considerable amount had to be spent for his treatment. In these circumstances, the petitioner became an additional burden on her parents.

In order to maintain herself and her child, she took up a petty job in the ICICI bank on a meagre salary. The petitioner now has been transferred to Bangalore, as a result of which it had become extremely difficult for her to attend the court proceedings in West Bengal. It is very expensive and time consuming. In these circumstances, the petitioner had filed a transfer petition praying that matrimonial suit no.437 of 2002 titled as “Kajal Kumar Ghosh versus Sanghamitra Ghosh” filed by the respondent-husband under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for restitution of conjugal rights and pending in the court of District Judge, Barasat be transferred to the court of competent jurisdiction at Bangalore.

This Court on 26.3.2004 issued a show-cause notice on the transfer petition. Reply to the transfer petition was filed by the respondent. The datewise sequence of events given by the respondent are contrary to what had been averred by the petitioner. According to the respondent, the petitioner was not driven out of the matrimonial home. In fact, she had walked out of the matrimonial home. The respondent further submitted that their marriage broke down due to the basic difference in their social status, educational and cultural background, lack of tolerance and inability to adopt and adjust to a life of a middle class family.

During the pendency of this petition, the parties have explored the possibility of an amicable settlement. The matter was adjourned from time to time to give the parties adequate time to mutually and amicably settle their differences. The parties, despite persuasion of the Court, have not been able to sort out their differences and decided to live separately. According to the parties, their marriage has been irretrievably broken down and reconciliation is out of question.

Learned counsel for the parties have prayed that in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, this Court may grant a decree of divorce by mutual consent.

On 15.9.2006, the parties have jointly filed a petition where they have spelt out the Terms of Compromise.

The Terms of Compromise read as under:

“1. Shri Kajal Ghosh/husband agrees to pay a sum of Rs.10 lacs (Rupees ten lacs) as full and final settlement to his wife Smt. Sanghamitra Ghosh. This amount shall be paid by Shri Kajal Kumar Ghosh in the Court by way of Demand Draft in favour of the petitioner.

2. Both the parties further agree to let the mother/Smt. Sanghamitra Ghosh have the permanent custody of the minor son.

3. However, the father, Kajal Ghosh will be entitled to have visitation rights to the child at the residence of the petitioner at a mutually convenient date with prior permission.

4. Both the parties also agree to forthwith withdraw/close all cases filed against each other and pending before the various courts in Kolkata and Bangalore. These cases are:

(i) Reference Case No.210/2002 pending before the learned SDM Court, Burrackpore, West Bengal.

(ii) MC No.713/2004 pending before the Principal Family Judge, Bangalore.

(iii) Reference Case No.M-313 of 2003 pending before the learned 5th Judicial Magistrate Court, Burrackpore, West Bengal.

(iv) Matrimonial Suit No.437/2002 pending before the District Judge, Barasat, West Bengal.

(v) Guardianship Case No.66/2004 pending before the District Judge, Barasat, West Bengal.

5. Both the parties undertake that they shall adhere to the terms of compromise/settlement and that they shall not litigate in future and have no claim against each other whatsoever in future.”

It may be relevant to mention that on 16.10.2006, respondent Kajal Kumar Ghosh had filed additional affidavit in which detailed particulars of the matters pending inter se between the parties have been enumerated. On the same day, the parties had also filed comprehensive terms of their compromise. The said terms are set out as under: “Both the parties viz. the petitioner and the respondent have voluntarily and with their free will, arrived at a compromise/settlement, which has been reduced into writing and which reads as under:

1. Shri Kajal Ghosh/husband agrees to pay a sum of Rs.10 lacs (Rupees ten lacs) as full and final settlement to his wife, Smt. Sanghamitra Ghosh. This amount shall be paid by Shri Kajal Ghosh in Court by way of the following Demand Drafts drawn on Allahabad Bank payable in her favour at Bangalore:-

a) DD No.634519 dated 11.9.2006 for Rs.2,50,000/-

b) DD No.634520 dated 11.9.2006 for Rs.2,50,000/-.

c) DD No.634521 dated 11.9.2006 for Rs.2,50,000/-

d) DD No.634522 dated 11.9.2006 for Rs.2,50,000/-.

2. Both the parties further agree to let the mother/Sanghamitra Ghosh have the permanent custody of the minor son.

3. However, the father/Kajal Ghosh will be entitled to have visitation rights to the child at the residence of his wife at a mutually convenient date with prior permission.

4. The following cases are pending between the parties before the various courts. These cases are:

i) REFERENCE CASE NO.210/2002 pending before the Learned SDM Court, Burrackpore, West Bengal filed by the wife/Sanghamitra under Section 498A IPC read with Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

TP (CRIMINAL) NO.171/2004 which has been filed by the wife before this Hon’ble Court arises out of these proceedings.

ii) MC NO.713/2004 pending before the Principal Family Judge, Bangalore filed by the wife under Section 13(1)(a) and (b) of the Hindu Marriage Act for grant of divorce.

TP (CIVIL) NO.727/2004 which has been filed by the husband before this Hon’ble Court arises out of these proceedings.

iii) REFERENCE CASE NO.M-313 OF 2003 pending before the Learned 5th Judicial Magistrate Court, Burrackpore, West Bengal filed by wife under Section 125 CrPC for maintenance.

TP (CRIMINAL) NO.105/2004 which has been filed by the wife before this Hon’ble Court arises out of these proceedings.

iv) MATRIMONIAL SUIT NO.437/2002 pending before the District Judge, Barasat, West Bengal filed by the husband under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights.

TP (CIVIL) NO.228/2004 which has been filed by the husband before this Court arises out of these proceedings.

v) GUARDIANSHIP CASE NO.66/2004 pending before the District Judge, Barasat, West Bengal filed by the husband under Section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act for custody.

TP (CIVIL) NO.168/2006 which has been filed by the wife before this Court arises out of these proceedings.

5. Both the parties humbly request this Court in exercise of its powers to do complete justice to the parties, quash/close all the above pending proceedings in view of this settlement as the parties do not intend pursuing the litigation any further.

6. Both the parties humbly request that all the transfer petitions pending in this Court (as mentioned earlier in para 4) to be dismissed as infructuous.

7. Both the parties submit that their marriage has broken down irretrievably and that there is no possibility of the parties living together. In these circumstances, both parties would humbly request this Court in exercise of its powers to grant a decree of divorce by mutual consent.

8. Both the parties undertake that they shall adhere to the terms of compromise/settlement and that they shall not litigate any further and will have no claim against each other hereafter.”

Learned counsel appearing for the parties have prayed that in the peculiar facts and circumstances and in the interest of justice, this Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution, may grant a decree of divorce by mutual consent.

Learned counsel for the parties have also drawn the attention of this Court to the decision of Harpit Singh Anand v. State of West Bengal reported in (2004) 10 SCC 505.

In this case, in almost similar

circumstances, this Court in order to put a

quietus to all litigations between the

parties and not to leave any room for future

litigation and on the request of the said

parties, exercising the power vested under

Article 142 of the Constitution, dissolved

the marriage and granted a decree of divorce

by mutual consent.

In the case of Kanchan Devi v. Promod Kumar Mittan & Another reported in (1996) 8 SCC 90, where the marriage of the parties was irretrievably broken down, this Court exercised the power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India and passed the following order:

“6. In view of the peculiar facts and

circumstances of the case and being

satisfied that the marriage between the

appellant and the respondent has

irretrievably broken down and that there is

no possibility of reconciliation, we in

exercise of our powers under Article 142 of

the Constitution of India hereby direct that

the marriage between the appellant and the

respondent shall stand dissolved by a decree

of divorce. All pending cases arising out of

the matrimonial proceedings and the

maintenance proceedings under Section 125

Cr. PC pending between the parties shall

stand disposed of and consigned to the

records in the respective courts on being

moved by either of the parties by providing

a copy of this order, which has settled all

those disputes in terms of the settlement.

This appeal is disposed of in the above

terms.”

In the case of Ashok Hurra v. Rupa Bipin Zaveri etc. reported in (1997) 4 SCC 226, this Court while dealing with a matrimonial matter quoted few excerpts from the Seventy-first Report of the Law Commission of India on the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955  “Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage”  dated 7.4.1978. We deem it appropriate to reproduce some excerpts from the said report as under:

“Irretrievable breakdown of marriage is now

considered, in the laws of a number of

countries, a good ground of dissolving the

marriage by granting a decree of divorce.

* * *

Proof of such a breakdown would be that the

husband and wife have separated and have

been living apart for, say, a period of five

or ten years and it has become impossible to

resurrect the marriage or to reunite the

parties. It is stated that once it is known

that there are no prospects of the success

of the marriage, to drag the legal tie acts

as a cruelty to the spouse and gives rise to

crime and even abuse of religion to obtain

annulment of marriage.

* * *

The theoretical basis for introducing

irretrievable breakdown as a ground of

divorce is one with which, by now, lawyers

and others have become familiar. Restricting

the ground of divorce to a particular

offence or matrimonial disability, it is

urged, causes injustice in those cases where

the situation is such that although none of

the parties is at fault, or the fault is of

such a nature that the parties to the

marriage do not want to divulge it, yet

there has arisen a situation in which the

marriage cannot be worked. The marriage has

all the external appearances of marriage,

but none of the reality. As is often put

pithily, the marriage is merely a shell out

of which the substance is gone. In such

circumstances, it is stated, there is hardly

any utility in maintaining the marriage as a

facade, when the emotional and other bounds

which are of the essence of marriage have

disappeared. After the marriage has ceased

to exist in substance and in reality, there

is no reason for denying divorce. The

parties alone can decide whether their

mutual relationship provides the fulfilment

which they seek. Divorce should be seen as a

solution and an escape route out of a

difficult situation. Such divorce is

unconcerned with the wrongs of the past, but

is concerned with bringing the parties and

the children to terms with the new situation

and developments by working out the most

satisfactory basis upon which they may

regulate their relationship in the changed

circumstances.

* * *

Moreover, the essence

of marriage is a sharing of common life, a

sharing of all the happiness that life has

to offer and all the misery that has to be

faced in life, an experience of the joy that

comes from enjoying, in common, things of

the matter and of the spirit and from

showering love and affection on one’s

offspring. Living together is a symbol of

such sharing in all its aspects. Living

apart is a symbol indicating the negation of

such sharing. It is indicative of a

disruption of the essence of marriage —

“breakdown”- and if it continues for a

fairly long period, it would indicate

destruction of the essence of marriage 

“irretrievable breakdown”.”

In order to do complete justice in the matrimonial matters, this Court has been less hesitant in exercising its extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution. To illustrate this fact, reference of some decided matrimonial cases is given hereinbelow.

In Swati Verma v. Rajan Verma & Others reported in (2004) 1 SCC 123, this Court came to a definite conclusion that the marriage between the parties has irretrievably broken down and with a view to restore good relationship and to put quietus to all litigations between the parties and not to leave any room for future litigation, so that they may live peacefully hereafter, this Court granted a decree of divorce by mutual consent while exercising its power under Article 142 of the Constitution.

This Court while exercising its unique power vested under Article 142 of the Constitution in a transfer petition in the case of Madhuri Mehta v. Meet Verma reported in (1997) 11 SCC 81, observed as under:

“During the course of hearing of this

transfer petition, parties have jointly made

an application under Section 13-B of the

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 before us praying

for dissolution of their marriage by mutual

consent and in the body of the application a

provision has been made for their only

child. Though the child has been conferred

the right to visit his father as and when he

likes, there is no corresponding right with

the father to visit his child. That state of

affairs would be violating the rights of the

child and the father. The husband will,

thus, have a right of visitation to see his

child but after giving due intimation to the

mother. The parties have been estranged and

have kept apart since January 1996. Earlier

to the present status, the parties had their

earlier marriages broken or disrupted. The

husband lost his wife in a vehicular

accident and the wife had divorced her

earlier husband. In this background their

differences can well be appreciated when

both of them are highly educated doctors.

Keeping that in view, we entertain this

application and grant them divorce by mutual

consent in exercise of our powers under

Article 142 of the Constitution, for which

there is ample authority reflective from

past decisions of this Court. The divorce

petition pending in the Family Court at

Patna, shall stand disposed of automatically

by this order.

The transfer petition and the divorce

petitions are disposed of accordingly.”

In another transfer petition in the matrimonial matter, in Anita Sabharwal v. Anil Sabharwal reported in (1997) 11 SCC 490, this Court was of the view that there was no hope for the parties to live together and passed the following order:

“A divorce

petition being HMA Case No.863 of 1994

preferred by the respondent-husband was

pending in the Court of Shri A.K. Pathak,

Additional District Judge, Delhi. The

instant transfer petition was moved by the

petitioner-wife seeking transfer of the said

case to the Family Court, Mumbai. During

the pendency of the transfer petition,

parties as well as their counsel had on

9.9.1996 put on record a compromise deed

wherein they have agreed to get divorce by

mutual consent. Strictly speaking, the

preconditions of such claim have not been

laid inasmuch as a petition to that effect

has not been filed under Section 13-B of the

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (the Act) before

the first matrimonial court, and that the

statutory period of 6 months has not even

commenced. Be that as it may, it stands

established beyond doubt on our summoning of

the original file  HMA Case No.863 of 1994

 that the parties were married about 14

years ago, have spent the prime of their

life in acrimony and litigating and that it

is time that their mutuality bears some

fruit in putting them apart. Therefore, we

take the divorce petition HMA Case No.863 of

1994 on our own file and import thereto the

compromise deed put on record by the parties

jointly. In terms therewith, a sum of Rs.7

lakhs stands paid to the wife by means of 3

separate bank drafts of Rs.2 lakhs, Rs.2

lakhs and Rs.3 lakhs. Recurring provision

has been made therein for their children’s

education and visitation rights of the

father. We have questioned the parties and

they are eager to dissolve the matrimonial

tie so that they can rearrange their lives

well in time. We, therefore, in the spirit

of Section 13-B of the Act, and in view of

the fact that all hopes to unite them

together have gone, hereby grant to the

parties divorce by a decree of dissolution

by mutual consent to end their prolonged

unhappiness. Ordered accordingly. The

transfer petition stands disposed of.”

We have heard learned counsel for the

parties. This Court adjourned the

proceedings from time to time to ensure that

the parties may reconcile the differences

and live together again, but this has not

happened. It is indeed the obligation of

the Court and all concerned that the

marriage status should, as far as possible,

as long as possible and whenever possible,

be maintained. But as aptly observed by

this Court, in a recent decision in Naveen

Kohli v. Neelu Kohli reported in (2006) 4

SCC 558, that when the marriage is totally

dead, in that event, nothing is gained by

trying to keep the parties tied forever to a

marriage which in fact has ceased to exist.

In the instant case, we are fully convinced that the marriage between the parties has irretrievably broken down because of incompatibility of temperament. In fact there has been total disappearance of emotional substratum in the marriage. The matrimonial bond between the parties is beyond repair. A marriage between the parties is only in name. The marriage has been wrecked beyond the hope of salvage, therefore, the public interest and interest of all concerned lies in the recognition of the fact and to declare defunct de jure what is already defunct de facto as observed in Naveen Kohli’s case (supra).

In view of peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, we consider it appropriate to exercise the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 142 of the Constitution.

In order to ensure that the parties may live peacefully in future, it has become imperative that all the cases pending between the parties are directed to be disposed of. According to our considered view, unless all the pending cases are disposed of and we put a quietus to litigation between the parties, it is unlikely that they would live happily and peacefully in future. In our view, this will not only help the parties, but it would be conducive in the interest of the minor son of the parties.

On consideration of the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, we deem it appropriate to pass the order in the following terms: a) The parties are directed to strictly adhere to the Terms of Compromise filed before this Court and also the orders and directions passed by this Court;

b) We direct that the cases pending between the parties, as enumerated in the preceding paragraphs, are disposed of in view of the settlement between the parties; and

c) All pending cases arising out of the matrimonial proceedings including the case of restitution of conjugal rights and guardianship case between the parties shall stand disposed of and consigned to the records in the respective courts on being moved by either of the parties by providing a copy of this order, which has settled all those disputes in terms of the settlement.

These transfer petitions are accordingly disposed of. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we direct the parties to bear their own costs.

Source : http://www.judis.nic.in/supremecourt/qrydisp.asp?tfnm=28288