Holding

The Court held that the parties' conscious, uninfluenced settlement and long separation justified dispensing with the six‑month period, allowing divorce by mutual consent and the quashing of all pending cases, with a restraining order against fresh suits without leave.

Summary

Anu Bhandari and Pradip Bhandari, married in 1997, had been living separately since 2011 and were involved in 23 pending civil and criminal cases. After extensive mediation, they reached an amicable settlement and filed an application for divorce by mutual consent under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act. The Supreme Court held that, given the long separation and the parties' conscious, uninfluenced decision, the mandatory six‑month cooling period was not required and granted a decree of divorce by mutual consent. All pending litigations between the parties were quashed or dismissed in accordance with the settlement, and the parties were restrained from instituting any fresh suit without the Court’s leave. The Court also emphasized the duty under Section 9 of the Family Courts Act to assist parties in reaching settlement and ordered the transfer of property and repayment of a demand draft as per the settlement terms.

Issues considered

Whether the six‑month cooling period under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act can be dispensed with when parties have settled all disputes and are separated for a long period.
Whether the Supreme Court can quash or dismiss all pending civil and criminal cases as part of a mutual settlement.
Whether parties can be restrained from instituting fresh litigation without the Court’s permission.
Interpretation of the duty of the court under Section 9 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 to facilitate settlement.

Legislation cited

Family Courts Act, 1984s. 9
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955s. 13B

Subjects

divorce by mutual consentsettlementFamily Courts Actmediationquashing of casesproperty settlementrestraining ordercooling period

Judgment

576 [2018]REPORTS
SUPREME COURT 3 S.C.R. 576 [2018] 3 S.C.R.

A ANU BHANDARI
v.
PRADIP BHANDARI
(Civil Appeal No. 2494 of 2018)
B MARCH 05, 2018
[KURIAN JOSEPH AND
MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, JJ.]
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – s.13B – Divorce by mutual
consent – Appellant and respondent married in 1997, living
C
separately since March 2011, were involved in various civil as well
as criminal litigations – Application filed by parties u/s.13B also –
Held: After several efforts for settlement, finally the parties have
reached a settlement based on which they have sought divorce by
mutual consent – Having regard to the background of the litigation
D and long separation between the parties, the parties have taken a
conscious decision uninfluenced by any extraneous factor, therefore
it is not necessary for them to wait for a further period of six months
– Accordingly, the marriage between appellant and respondent is
dissolved by a decree of divorce by mutual consent – In terms of the
settlement, the entire litigations between the parties are also put to
E
an end – Parties are directed to strictly abide by the terms of
settlement and are also restrained from instituting any fresh litigation
in respect of the subject matter without the leave of Supreme Court.
Family Courts Act, 1984 – s.9 – Duty of Court – Discussed.
F Disposing of the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The parties have cooperated with the tireless
efforts taken by this Court. It is heartening to note that finally
the parties have reached an amicable settlement. The terms of
settlement have been stated in detail in Interlocutory Application
G No. 19210 of 2018, based on which the parties have sought for
divorce by mutual consent. The said application shall form part
of this Judgment. Having regard to the nature of the cases and
having due regard to the settlement, it is in the interest of justice
that the entire litigations between the parties are also put an end
to, in terms of the settlement.[Paras 3, 4] [578-H; 579-A, C]
H
576
ANU BHANDARI v. PRADIP BHANDARI 577

1.2 As all the disputes have been settled, it is not necessary A
to relegate the parties for another litigation before the Family
Court. The parties are present before Supreme Court. Having
regard to the background of the litigation and having regard to
the long separation between the parties, the parties have taken
a conscious decision, uninfluenced by any extraneous factor and
B
therefore, it is not necessary for them to wait for a further period
of six months. Accordingly, the marriage between the appellant
and the respondent is dissolved by a decree of divorce by mutual
consent. They are directed to strictly abide by the terms of
settlement and are also restrained from instituting any fresh
litigation in respect of the subject matter without leave of this C
Court. [Paras 9 and 10] [581-D-E]
2. Under Section 9 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, the
Court has a duty to make an endeavour to assist and persuade
the parties in arriving at a settlement. Unlike many other
legislations, the Legislature has cast a duty on the Court in that D
regard. The jurisdiction is not just to decide a dispute, on the
contrary, the court also has to involve itself in the process of
conciliation/mediation between the parties for assisting them not
only to settle the disputes but also to secure speedy settlement
of disputes. Such timely intervention of the court will not only
resolve the disputes and settle the parties peacefully but also E
prevent sporadic litigations between the parties. [Para 14]
[582-C-D]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2494
of 2018.
F
From the Judgment and Order dated 11.04.2016 of the High Court
of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Civil Revision No. 3430 of
2014
WITH
Civil Appeal No. 2495 of 2018. G
Subramanium Prasad, Sr. Adv., Ms. Varuna Bhandari Gugnani,
Bhakti Vardhan Singh, Amit Kumar Pathak, Tushar Thareja, Vikas Singh
Jangra, Siddhartha Iyer, H. Pal Singh, Ms. Ruchi Kohli, Gaurav Gilhotra,
Ms. Rajitha (TH), Surinder Kumar Gupta, Advs. for the appearing
parties. H
578 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 3 S.C.R.

A The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
KURIAN, J. 1. Leave granted.
2.

B

C

D

This is the rich encomium paid to the Court by Master Vibhu, the
ten year old son of the appellant and respondent. The little one present in
Court today is exuberantly happy and sought liberty to present a handmade
E card expressing his joy on the settlement of all the disputes and litigations
between his mother and father. Their marriage was solemnized as per
Hindu rites on 18.05.1997. They have two children - Bhuvi, the elder
daughter born on 19.04.1998 and Vibhu, son born on 31.01.2008. On
account of marital discord and temperamental differences, they have
been living separately since March, 2011. They are involved in various
F litigations, civil as well as criminal. As of now, twenty three cases are
pending before various courts – Trial Courts, High Court, this Court and
one before the Consumer Forum.
3. There have been several efforts for settlement. Notable among
them were the intervention of Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Lisa Gill, Judge of
G the High Court of Punjab and Haryana and Ms. Meenakshi Arora, learned
Senior Counsel, appointed by this Court as Mediator. Having noticed
that all the efforts hitherto have not been fully fruitful, we directed the
parties to be present before this Court. The parties have cooperated

H
ANU BHANDARI v. PRADIP BHANDARI 579
[KURIAN, J.]

with the tireless efforts taken by this Court. It is heartening to note that A
finally the parties have reached an amicable settlement. The terms of
settlement have been stated in detail in Interlocutory Application No.
19210 of 2018, based on which the parties have sought for divorce by
mutual consent. The Interlocutory Application No. 19210 of 2018 shall
form part of this Judgment.
B
4. Since the parties have finally resolved their entire disputes,
they have prayed for giving a quietus to the entire civil and criminal
litigations. Having regard to the nature of the cases and having due
regard to the settlement, we are of the view that it is in the interest of
justice that the entire litigations between the parties are also put an end
C
to, in terms of the settlement.
5. Accordingly, the following cases are quashed:-

Sl. Case No. Court/Authority
No. D

1. Crl. Complaint No.162/14 Judicial Magistrate First
Class, Chandigarh
2. Crl. Complaint No.1359/16 Judicial Magistrate First
Class, Chandigarh E
3. PHC 1430/14 Judicial Magistrate First
Class, Chandigarh

4. Untraceable Case 156/2016 Judicial Magistrate First
Class, Chandigarh F
5. Case No.301/13 dated 14.6.13 Judicial Magistrate First
Class, Chandigarh
6. Case No.464/13 Judicial Magistrate First
Class, Chandigarh
G
7. FIR No.0167 dated 25.8.2017 P.S. P.S. City Phagwara
City Phagwara

H
580 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 3 S.C.R.

A 6. The following cases are dismissed:-

Sl.No. Case No. Court/Authori ty

1. Ci vil Suit No.12905/13 Judicial Magistrate First
Class, Chandigarh
B
2. Crl. Mi sc. Case No.570 of 2016 Judicial Magistrate First
Class, Chandigarh

3. Crl. Mi sc. Case No.305 of 2015 Judicial Magistrate First
Class, Chandigarh
C
4. Execution App. No.543/14 ADJ, Chandigarh

5. Ci vil Suit No.CS CJ/1072/2016 JMIC, Chandigarh

6. Contested Mutation No.8303 of Sub. Divisional Magistrate
D Village Maloya, Chandigarh (South) U.T. Chandigarh

7. The following cases are disposed of in terms of the Settlement:-

E S l.No . C a se N o. C o ur t/A u tho rity

1. C R M N o .M -10 87 o f 2 01 7 H igh C ou rt o f Pu njab a nd
H a ry a na at C ha n dig a rh

2. C R M N o .M -10 62 0 of 20 17 H igh C ou rt o f Pu njab and
H a ry a na at C ha n dig a rh
F
3. C R M N o .M -14 49 9 of 20 17 H igh C ou rt o f Pu njab a nd
H a ry a na at C ha n dig a rh

4. C R M N o .M -78 65 o f 2 01 7 H igh C ou rt o f Pu njab a nd
H a ry a na at C ha n dig a rh

G 5. C R M N o .M -76 22 o f 2 01 7 H igh C ou rt o f Pu njab a nd
H a ry a na at C ha n dig a rh

6. C R M N o .M -31 88 5 of 20 17 H igh C ou rt o f Pu njab a nd
H a ry a na at C ha n dig a rh
7. C R M N o .M -22 47 4 of 20 14 H igh C ou rt o f Pu njab a nd
H a ry a na at C ha n dig a rh
H
ANU BHANDARI v. PRADIP BHANDARI 581
[KURIAN, J.]

The Consumer Case No.580 of 2014 filed by Ms. Anu Bhandari A
pending before the Chandigarh District Consumer Disputes Redressal
Forum-I, UT Chandigarh is dismissed.

rst 8. Civil Appeal No. 2494 of 2018 arises out of Special Leave
Petition (Civil) No. 15537 of 2016 filed by Ms. Anu Bhandari being
aggrieved by Order dated 11.04.2016 passed by the High Court of Punjab B
rst and Haryana in Civil Revision No. 3430 of 2014. Civil Appeal No. 2495
of 2018 arises out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 2343 of 2017 is
filed by Pradip Bhandari being aggrieved by Order dated 11.04.2016
rst passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Civil Revision No.
3430 of 2014.
C
9. What survives is only the Application filed by the parties under
Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. As we have settled all
disputes, we do not think it necessary to relegate them for another litigation
before the Family Court. The parties are present before us. Having
ate regard to the background of the litigation and having regard to the long
separation between the parties, we are convinced that the parties have D
taken a conscious decision, uninfluenced by any extraneous factors.
Therefore, it is not necessary for them to wait for a further period of six
months. Accordingly, the marriage between Anu Bhandari and Pradip
Bhandari is dissolved by a decree of divorce by mutual consent.
10 The appellant and respondent are directed to strictly abide by E
nd the terms of settlement. They are also restrained from instituting any
fresh litigation in respect of the subject matter without leave of this Court.
nd 11. In our Order dated 15.02.2018, the following direction in terms
of the statement had been issued:
F
nd “2. Mr. Pradip Bhandari is directed to transfer his share in
agricultural land situated in Khewat No.159, Khatauni No.176,
nd Khasra 46/2 (20-0) in Village Golpura, Tehsil and District Panchkula
as per Jamabandi for the year 2007-2008 left over land owned as
on date by Mr. Pradip Bhandari in favour of Ms. Anu Bhandari/
nd G
wife, Bhuvi Bhandari and master Vibhu Bhandari.”
12. The Tehsildar concerned is directed to effect the required
nd
transfer and change the mutation in respect of the property referred to
nd
in the order in favour of Anu Bhandari, Bhuvi Bhandari and Master
Vibhu Bhandari. It is made clear that the share of Mr. Pradip Bhandari
will be equally divided among the three. This shall be done immediately. H
582 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 3 S.C.R.

A 13. We are informed that an amount of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty
Thousand) is lying in the form of Demand Draft in the name of Ms. Anu
Bhandari with Judicial Magistrate First Class, Chandigarh in Case No.
301 of 2013 dated 14.06.2013. We direct the Court concerned to return
the Demand Draft to Mr. Pradip Bhandari forthwith. Mr. Pradip Bhandari
is directed to pay an amount of Rs.50,000/- to Ms. Anu Bhandari within
B
a week thereafter.
14. Before parting with the Judgment, we may hasten to observe
that what has been closed is not simply twenty three cases; in the
background of both the parties, they would have easily gone for many
more litigations in the coming years. Under Section 9 of the Family Courts
C Act, 1984, the Court has a duty to make an endeavour to assist and
persuade the parties in arriving at a settlement. Unlike many other
legislations, the Legislature has cast a duty on the Court in that regard.
The jurisdiction is not just to decide a dispute, on the contrary, the court
also has to involve itself in the process of conciliation/mediation between
D the parties for assisting them not only to settle the disputes but also to
secure speedy settlement of disputes. Such timely intervention of the
court will not only resolve the disputes and settle the parties peacefully
but also prevent sporadic litigations between the parties.
15. We record our deep appreciation for the strenuous efforts
E taken by Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Lisa Gill, Judge of the High Court of
Punjab and Haryana, Ms. Meenakshi Arora, learned Senior Counsel
appointed as Mediator by this Court and for the cooperation extended
by the learned Counsel on both sides and the parties themselves.
F 16. The Civil Appeals are accordingly disposed of.
F 17. There shall be no order as to costs.

Divya Pandey Appeals disposed of.

G

H