IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA                                                       CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

     WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No.256 of 2008            

Aparna Mehta Kapur & Anr. .....Appellant(s)

    Versus State of U.P. & Anr. .....Respondent(s)

                            O R D E R

      By this writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, the

petitioner-wife seeks directions  to: (i) respondent No. 2-husband to settle all the

pending  matters  amicably  in  the  interest  of  the  minor  child,  petitioner  No.  2

herein  and  (ii)  the  Civil  Judge  (Sr.  Division),  Gautam Budh Nagar.  Noida  to

dispose  off  matrimonial  case  No.637/2005  Aparna  Mehta  Kapur  Vs.  Sanjay

Kapur expeditiously.

Although having regard to the nature of the reliefs prayed for by the

petitioners, perhaps this petition was  not the proper  remedy but realising that

dismissal  of  the petition  would  result  in  procrastination of  great  strain  to the

spouses because of pendency of several cases against each other and the trauma

their 13 year old daughter was going through, we entertained the petition.

However, since petitioner No. 1 was appearing in person, we requested

Ms. Kamini Jaiswal, Advocate to assist us in the matter.  While issuing notice to

the respondents on 11th August, 2008, it was directed that

..2/-

:2:

respondent No. 2 (Husband) shall  remain present in Court on the next date of

hearing.   When the matter was taken up for consideration on 29th September,

2008,  it  was  felt  that  it  would  be  appropriate  if  the  case  is  referred  to  the

Mediation Centre at  Delhi  High Court and an attempt is  made to resolve the

disputes between the parties.

Pursuant  to  the  said  order,  the  parties  appeared before  the  learned

Mediator, who interacted with the parties on several dates and, ultimately, vide

her report dated 11th December, 2008, apprised this Court about the progress in

those proceedings.   it  was reported that though substantial  progress had been

made in settlement of disputes between the parties, there were still some areas of

concern which were yet to be addressed. Nevertheless, as per the report, a draft

settlement agreement had been circulated to the parties and their counsel for their

consideration.   Ultimately,  the  learned  Mediator  filed  her  final  report  on  5th

January, 2009, reporting that even though a final settlement between the parties

had been arrived at, but the parties had certain apprehensions on the settlement

in regard to the visitation rights to the father which could be cleared with the

intervention  of  this  Court.   An  unsigned  copy  of  the  settlement  agreement

between the parties was filed with the report.

...3/-

:3:

On 7th January, 2009, when the matter came up for consideration of the

final report submitted by the learned Mediator, learned counsel for the parties

stated  that  the  terms  of  settlement,  incorporated  in  the  draft  settlement

agreement, dated December 28, 2008, were acceptable to their respective clients,

and they would ensure that all these are adhered to in letter and spirit.  Learned

counsel sought time to file  a proper affidavit/document setting out the consent

terms so that the matter could be disposed of in terms thereof, which has been

done.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties.

In  view of  the  fact  that  an  amicable  settlement  has  been arrived  at

between the contesting parties, it is unnecessary to advert to the facts giving rise

to the filing  of  the present  petition.   What needs to be noted is  that  with the

untiring  efforts  of  the  learned  Mediator,  the  wife  (petitioner  No.1)  and  the

husband (respondent  No.2)  have resolved  their  differences  amicably  and  have

filed a signed application praying that this Court may be pleased to record the

settlement and dissolve  the marriage between them by a decree of  divorce  by

mutual consent; the period under Section 13 B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

(hereinafter for short `the Act) be dispensed with and

...4/-

:4:

various  cases  initiated  by  them  against  each  other  may  be  quashed.  The

application is signed by both the said parties and is supported by their affidavits.

Both the parties, are present in Court and have been identified by their counsel.

They re-affirm that they have entered into the settlement without any pressure or

coercion from any side.

We have perused the terms of the settlement.  It seems to be bona fide

and therefore there is  no  impediment in  accepting  the same to put  an  end to

acrimonious disputes between the parties.

Accordingly,  in  exercise  of  our jurisdiction  under  Article  142 of  the

Constitution we allow I.A. No.1/2009; take the said settlement on record; dispense

with the notice period under Section 13 B of the Act and pass a decree of divorce

for dissolution of marriage solemnised between petitioner No. 1 and respondent

No. 2 by mutual consent.  The said parties shall remain bound by the terms of the

settlement.   We  further  direct  that  all  pending  cases/complaints,  particularly

arising  out  of  FIR No.  221/2003  (u/s  498A,  323,  504,  506/IPC and  3/4  of  the

Prohibition of Dowry Act 1961), Case Crime No. 263/2003, P.S. Section 39, Noida)

shall stand quashed.

...5/-

:5:

Before  parting  with  the  case,  we  wish  to  place  on  record  our

appreciation  for  the efforts  made by Ms.  Sadhana Ramchandran,  the learned

Mediator; Ms. Kamini Jaiswal, the learned Amicus Curiae; Mr. Kirti Uppal and

Mr.  Jatinder  Mohan  Sharma,  learned  counsel  for  the  parties,  without  whose

active  and  meaningful  cooperation  perhaps  even  the  second  attempt  for

settlement would not have been possible.

The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms.

.................J.        [ D.K. JAIN ]   

.................J.                                                 [  R.M. LODHA ]        NEW DELHI,      JANUARY 16, 2009.