RESTORATION OF MUTUAL CONSENT DIVORCE PROCEEDINGS AMIDST SUBSISTING MATRIMONIAL DISCORD AND PREVIOUSLY EXECUTED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENTS

The revisionist (wife) and respondent No. 2 (husband) married on April 17, 2019, following a courtship, but cohabited for only 28 days until May 14, 2019

Severe matrimonial discord led to multiple legal proceedings, including an FIR lodged by the wife alleging rape and cruelty (Sections 376, 498-A IPC), which resulted in the husband's eight-month incarceration and subsequent acquittal

In 2021, the parties filed a mutual consent divorce petition (Case No. 180 of 2021) under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, wherein they agreed to a permanent alimony of Rs. 11 lakhs

While the husband paid Rs. 6 lakhs and deposited the remaining Rs. 5 lakhs with the Family Court, the divorce proceedings were closed as the husband could not appear due to the ongoing criminal trials

The present revision arose from orders dated September 2, 2023, and October 13, 2023, passed by the Family Court, Haridwar, under Section 125 Cr.P.C.

1. Whether the matrimonial dispute, characterized by an irretrievable breakdown and failed prior settlement, can be resolved through the revival of mutual consent divorce proceedings

2. Whether the Court should exercise its revisional jurisdiction to facilitate an amicable settlement given the parties' refusal to cohabit

Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, which provides for divorce by mutual consent of the parties

Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. regarding maintenance

The principle of promoting amicable settlements in matrimonial disputes through mediation and counseling ethics to prevent the stagnation of future prospects for educated litigants

The Court observed that despite mediation efforts and a detailed counselor's report dated March 11, 2026, the parties remained "negatively up to the neck in their relationship" and categorically refused to live together

The Court noted that a prior settlement reached in 2021 had stayed partially executed (husband paid Rs. 6 lakhs out of Rs. 11 lakhs) but failed because the wife reopened cases and the husband was imprisoned

The Court reasoned that since both parties are well-educated—the wife a biotech postgraduate and the husband a mechanical engineer—continued litigation would only serve to detrimentally impact their future prospects

Consequently, the Court found that the most viable legal path was to permit the revival of the previous 13-B petition, as the terms of alimony had once been mutually acceptable and the marriage had irretrievably broken down after only 28 days of cohabitation

The Family Court was directed to revive, proceed with, and conclude the said petition on its merits upon receipt of such an application; parties were granted the freedom to raise additional pleas before the Family Court