Amicable Settlement

Case BriefsSupreme Court

Supreme Court: The Division Bench of Ajay Rastogi and Abhay S. Oka, JJ., while noting the mitigating factors and circumstances in which a crime had been committed, reduced the quantum of sentence for a conviction under Section 307  Penal Code, 1860.

Appellant approached the Supreme Court on being dissatisfied by the Bombay High Court’s decision upholding the conviction of the appellant for the offence under Section 307 Penal Code, 1860.

Prosecutions’ case was that the complainant lodged an oral report contending that Chintaman Dange was his maternal uncle and very active in social work. Previously the appellant and Chintaman Dange had a quarrel because of unlawful construction.

Appellant had stabbed on the stomach of Chintaman Dange with the intent to kill him.

After framing of charge, appellant faced the trial.

Injured victim came forward with the request that, as the families have settled their disputes and almost half of the sentence has been undergone by the appellant, it may be considered to be sufficient in due compliance of the judgment impugned upholding conviction under Section 307 IPC.

Analysis, Law and Decision

It was noted by the Court that the joint affidavit by parties made it clear that on the advice of elders, they had entered into an amicable settlement.

Appellant apologized for his fault and had taken responsibility for his action and had maturely sought forgiveness from the victim. Further, the victim also voluntarily accepted the apology while considering the age of the appellant at the time of the incident and had forgiven him.

Court cited the decision of Murali v. State, (2021) 1 SCC 726, wherein the parties decided to forgive their past and live amicably, this Court had come to their rescue by interfering in the quantum of sentence which obviously was not compoundable under Section 320 CrPC but had interfered since there was no minimum sentence prescribed.

Supreme Court opined that the present matter is a fit case to take a sympathetic view and reconsider the quantum of sentence awarded to the appellant.

Bench stated that the joint affidavit inspired confidence that the apology as tendered by the appellant had voluntarily been accepted given the efflux of time and was not a result of any coercion or inducement.

Considering that the parties are residing in the same village and are peacefully residing after the uncalled for incident had taken place, in Court’s view, this appeared to be a fit case for reduction of sentence.

Hence, the Court reduced the quantum of sentence imposed on the appellant from 10 to 5 years.

In view of the above, application was disposed of. [SY. Azhar SY. Kalandar v. State of Maharashtra, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 701, decided on 13-09-2021]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Bombay High Court: The Division Bench of S.S. Shinde and Abhay Ahuja, JJ., reiterated the observation of Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303, while quashing an FIR registered for offences under Sections 498(A), 406, 504, 323, 34 of the Penal Code and Sections 3, 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, on the ground of matter being resolved amicably.

Factual Matrix

Due to differences between the husband and wife, they sought a divorce and a petition was filed before the Family Court, Bandra which was later converted into mutual consent divorce petition under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

High Court stated that considering the fact that a matrimonial dispute which sought to be amicably resolved, the Court deemed it appropriate to seek guidance from the Supreme Court decision in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303, wherein it was observed that:

“…the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre-dominatingly civil favour stand on different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, High Court may quash criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case would put accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in affrmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding.”

Bench added that the present matter involved offences arising out of matrimony and was basically private in nature and the parties sought to resolve their entire dispute and due to the compromise between them, the possibility of conviction would be remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case would lead to great prejudice or injustice.

Therefore, in view of the above discussion, petition was allowed while allowing the below prayer clause:

“a. That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to quash and set aside the FIR No.256 of 2019, registered by Vikhroli Police Station at Mumbai, under Sections 498(A), 406, 504, 323, 34 of Indian Penal Code, and 3, 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act dated 19.06.2019 and Criminal Case No.959/PW/2020 and pending before Ld. 31st Metropolitan Magistrate’s Court at Vikhroli, Mumbai, and further be pleased to discharge the Petitioners from C.C. No.256 of 2019 under Sections 498(A), 406, 504, 323, 34 of Indian Penal Code, and 3, 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.” 

Petition was disposed of in the above terms. [Yuvraj Raman Jadhav v. State of Maharashtra, 2021 SCC OnLine Bom 780, decided on 1-06-2021]

Advocates before the Court:

Ms. Anushka Shreshtha for the Petitioners.

Mr.J.P. Yagnik, APP for the Respondent-State.

Mr. Jayesh Bhosle for Respondent No.2.

Mr. Yuvraj R. Jadhav – Petitioner No.1 present through V.C.

Mrs. Madhuri Jadhav (maiden name–Madhuri Sawant)-Respondent No.2 present through V.C.

Jharkhand High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

Jharkhand High Court: Amitav K. Gupta, J. acquitted the petitioners of the charges on an amicable settlement between the parties.

The relevant facts of the case are that the petitioner has been convicted for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, by the court of Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jamshedpur and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment of 18 days and pay the compensation of Rs 31,000 under Section 357 (3) CrPC. The said judgment and conviction has been affirmed in Criminal Appeal by the Sessions Judge, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur. Hence the instant criminal revision.

The counsel Ashok Kumar Yadav for the petitioner submitted that in compliance of the order dated 31-01-2020, amount of Rs 31,000 has been paid. The counsel P. Mitra for the complainant submitted that amount has been handed over by the petitioner and since the entire amount has been paid he does not want to proceed with the case. The Court relied on the judgment titled Meters & Instrument (P) Ltd. v. Kanchan Mehta; (2018) 1 SCC 560  held that the object of the provision of the Negotiable Instrument Act is primarily compensatory and the court can in the interest of justice discharge the accused on amicable settlement of the matter. In view of the above arguments the petitioner is acquitted of the charges and the judgment dated 08.05-2019 is set aside. [Alok Kumar v. State of Jharkhand, Cr. Revision No. 694 of 2019, decided on 06-03 2020]

Uttarakhand High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

Uttaranchal High Court: Manoj K. Tiwari, J. allowed a writ petition to quash criminal proceedings after parties compromise over a non-compoundable offence.

The petitioners were convicted for the charge of robbery under Section 392 of the Penal Code, 1860. The learned counsels for both the parties, Mr Mani Kumar for the petitioners and Mr Kishore Rai for respondent 3, submitted that the dispute was amicably settled and the parties want to bury the hatchet. A writ petition seeking quashing of the FIR lodged against the petitioners and a compounding application was duly filed in the court.

The Court commented extensively on the power conferred by Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 stating its primary need to be the prevention of abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice. It is equally well settled that the power is not to be resorted to if there is a specific provision in the Code for the redress of the grievance of an aggrieved party. It should be exercised very sparingly and it should not be exercised as against the express bar of law engrafted in any other provision of the Code.

As to when can a High Court quash criminal proceedings in view of a settlement between the parties, the offences being non-compoundable, the Court took the Supreme Court’s view in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303 which was that it can do so if in its opinion continuation of criminal proceedings will be an exercise in futility and justice in the case demands that the dispute between the parties is put to an end and peace is restored; securing the ends of justice being the ultimate guiding factor.

In view of the points of law discussed above, the Court acknowledged that the possibility of a conviction from a trial seemed rather bleak and remote considering the parties have entered into a compromise and thus, allowed the writ petition. [Gurmukh v. State of Uttarakhand, 2019 SCC OnLine Utt 1138, decided on 08-11-2019]

Gauhati High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

Gauhati High Court: Rumi Kumari Phukan, J., allowed and further disposed of the petition in view of the matter being settled outside the Court.

Facts pertaining to the present petition were that the respondent 2 lodged an FIR raising allegations of mental torture, dowry and her father-in-law outraging her modesty. Adding to the said allegations, she filed the FIR with certain other allegations against her husband and father-in-law under Section 498 (A)/ 354 Penal Code, 1860.

Further, during the course of the trial when the trial court impleaded the accused’s they all collectively came forward for quashing the entire proceedings on the ground that they have already settled the matter and the informant has no more interest to proceed with the case.

High Court noted the affidavit sworn by the respondent/wife in respect to the settlement in which it was stated that she is not willing to pursue the case as the matter was already settled amicably between the parties.

Court in the present matter noted that it was in respect to matrimonial offence and the victim herself came forward apprising about the amicable settlement, which implies that the victim/respondent will not support her case.

“Amicable settlement in a case of matrimonial offence can be allowed for the sake of social justice so as to maintain harmony in the society.”

Stating the above, the Court held that as the victim herself has buried her grievances against all the accused persons, the further proceeding will yield no result and it will be an abuse of process of law. [Hiranmoy Das v. State of Assam, 2019 SCC OnLine Gau 5018, decided on 04-11-2019]

Punjab and Haryana High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

Punjab and Haryana High Court: A Bench of Arvind Singh Sangwan, J., quashed the FIR on the basis of the compromise entered into by the parties.

A petition was filed by the petitioner for quashing the FIR for the offences punishable under Sections 377, 34 of Penal Code, 1908 and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.  The ground for quashing the FIR mentioned was with respect to the compromise entered by the party. The Court revealed that they have voluntarily entered into a compromise and the Court is satisfied that the parties have amicably settled their dispute without any fear, pressure, threat or coercion and out of their free will. Hence the Application for quashing of FIR was filed.

The Learned counsel for the petitioner, Piyush Sharma, submitted apart from the amicable settlement between the parties there was no other criminal case pending and none of the petitioners is a proclaimed offender. Reliance was placed upon the case of Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India, (2018) 10 SCC 1.

The Learned counsel for the respondent, M.S. Nagra, has not disputed the fact that the parties have arrived at a settlement with intent to give burial to their differences.

The Court after noting the submissions of both the parties held that “since the parties have arrived at a compromise and have decided to live in peace, no useful purpose would be served in allowing the criminal proceedings to continue.”[Pipal Singh v. State of Punjab, 2019 SCC OnLine P&H 450, decided on 29-04-2019]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Gujarat High Court: The Bench of Dr A.P. Thaker, J. while enlarging the appellant on bail disposed of a petition since the matter in dispute was already settled by the parties amicably.

In the pertinent matter, the appellant (accused -husband) and the original complainant (wife) got married while they both continued to reside separately at their respective homes and the same was not revealed to their families. Later the parents accepted them and they both were remarried. Subsequently, a complaint was made where it was alleged that the accused persons (in-laws and the husband) started abusing her regarding her caste and tortured her physically and mentally seeking dowry. An FIR was lodged after a 2 months delay to that effect. But later an affidavit was filed acknowledging the fact that the dispute has been amicably settled by the parties and that the complainant has no problem if the appeal is allowed.

The Court after considering the facts, presence of the original complainant and the affidavit so produced, was of the opinion that the husband and wife have amicably settled the dispute and the alleged offence under the provisions of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is not made out. Therefore, considered it to be a fit case to exercise its discretion under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code and thus the bail was granted. [Mauleshbhai Ramanbhai Raval v. State of Gujarat, 2019 SCC OnLine Guj 677, decided on 15-04-2019]

Uttarakhand High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

Uttaranchal High Court: The Bench of Narayan Singh Dhanik J. disposed a compounding application along with a criminal writ petition and quashed the First Information Report filed against the accused applicant on the ground of amicable settlement of the dispute between the parties.

The instant application had been filed for quashing FIR registered against the applicant under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. The accused-applicant and respondent-complainant entered into a compromise whereby the loss suffered by respondent was duly compensated and dispute between both the parties had been amicably settled. The complainant had no grudge or grievance against the accused-applicant and hence he was not interested in further prosecution.

The Court observed that though the complainant can be permitted to enter into the compromise for offences under Sections 406 and 420 IPC, but for the offences under Sections 467, 468 and 471 IPC, the complainant has no right to enter into a compromise with the accused. However, it was opined that in the present case, as the complainant and accused had willingly and amicably arrived at compromise; and complainant was not interested in further prosecution, therefore it would be futile to permit future trial inasmuch as it would not reach to its logical and correct conclusion as there is great possibility of witnesses turning hostile.

In view of the above, compromise arrived at between the parties was accepted and the compounding application was allowed. [Akil Ahmad v. State of Uttarakhand, 2019 SCC OnLine Utt 10, Order dated 16-01-2019]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Bombay High Court: A Division Judge Bench comprising of Ranjit More and Bharati H. Dangre, JJ., quashed the criminal proceedings for the offence punishable under Sections 354, 504, 506 and 509 of IPC,1860 on dispute being settled amicably by the parties.

The case was filed against Ness Nusli Wadia by the actress Preity Zinta for the offence under Sections 354, 504, 506 and 509 of IPC, 1860. It was stated that during the pendency of the case, the well-wishers, friends and family of the parties intervened for an amicable settlement after which the respondent 2 filed an affidavit in which it was expressed that she has no objection to quash the criminal proceeding.

Therefore, the Court on noting the affidavit filed for quashing the criminal proceeding with her own free will and respondent stating that the dispute is settled and she wants to move in life by not further proceeding for the case, the High Court quashed the subject criminal proceedings.

Further, the High Court by placing reliance on the decision of Supreme Court in Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab, (2008) 4 SCC 582 stated that no purpose would be served by keeping the subject FIR alive except ultimately burdening the Criminal Courts. The petition stands allowed. [ Ness Nusli Wadia v. State of Maharashtra,2018 SCC OnLine Bom 3361,  dated 10-10-2018]

Uttarakhand High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

Uttaranchal High Court: A Single Judge Bench comprising of V.K. Bisht, J. allowed a criminal miscellaneous petition filed under Section 482 CrPC for quashing of the proceedings pending against the petitioner before the trial court in a criminal case.

The petitioner was booked as a co-accused in a criminal case registered for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 147, 323, 420, 468, 471, 504, 506 IPC. Along with the petition, a joint compounding application was also filed. The compounding application was supported by the affidavits filed by the petitioner-accused and the respondent-complainant. It was stated that the petitioner and the respondent had entered into an amicable settlement, and the respondent did not want to prosecute the case any further.

The High Court noted that the petitioner and the respondent were present in the Court and they were duly identified by their respective counsels. The parties admitted to an amicable settlement. The High Court relied on the Supreme Court decision in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303, wherein it was held that criminal proceedings can be quashed by the Court, if the Court is satisfied that the matter has been settled between the parties amicably and the parties are interested to restore peace and harmony between them. Having considered the submissions and after going through the entire record, the High Court was satisfied that the parties had settled the dispute amicably. Thus, the Court allowed the petition and quashed the criminal proceedings pending against the petitioner before the trial court. The compounding application was disposed of accordingly. [Dilbagh Singh v. State of Uttarakhand,2018 SCC OnLine Utt 569, dated 19-6-2018]

Uttarakhand High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

Uttaranchal High Court: The FIR registered against the petitioners for offences punishable under Sections 323, 452, 504 and 506 IPC was quashed by a Single Judge Bench of V.K. Bist, J.

The petitioners sought for quashing of the above-mentioned FIR and the proceedings arising therefrom. Affidavits were filed by the respondent and the injured in support of the application by the petitioners. Further, learned counsels for the parties submitted that parties had entered into a compromise and the matter had been amicably settled between them. Also, the respondent did not want to press the case further filed against the petitioners, they were left with no grudges and they wanted to live peacefully in future.

Referring to the Supreme Court decision in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303, the High Court held that criminal proceedings can be quashed by the High Court if the Court is satisfied that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties and they are interested to restore peace and harmony between them. On the facts of the present case, the Court found that the matter, in fact, had been amicably settled between the parties and therefore the petition deserved to be allowed. Accordingly, the impugned FIR was quashed. [Saurabh Sharma v. State of Uttarakhand,  2018 SCC OnLine Utt 385, order dated 27-04-2018]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Himachal Pradesh High Court: A Single Judge Bench comprising of Ajay Mohan Goel, J., allowed a criminal petition filed by the accused-petitioner praying for quashing of FIR registered under Sections 353 and 506 IPC as well as the consequential proceedings arising therefrom.

The petitioner submitted that the issue which led to registration of the FIR, stood amicably resolved between the complainant and the petitioner. Further, the complainant stated before the Court that a compromise was arrived at between the parties as per which the complainant submitted that she was no more interested in pursuing the case against the petitioner. She categorically stated that she had no objection in case the FIR and consequential proceedings against the petitioner are quashed. She submitted that she entered into the compromise out of her own free will and not under threat or coercion. Learned Additional Advocate General also submitted that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties, and the State had no objection in case the petition was allowed and the FIR was quashed.

The Court considered the submissions made by and on behalf of the parties and was of the considered view that since an amicable settlement was arrived at between the parties and since the complainant was no more interested in pursuing the case against the petitioner, it would be in the interest of justice to quash the FIR registered against the petitioner as well as consequential proceedings arising therefrom. Orders were passed accordingly. [Ved Prakash v. State of H.P., 2018 SCC OnLine HP 273, dated 21.3.2018]

Uttarakhand High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

Uttaranchal High Court: A criminal writ petition filed by the petitioners for quashing the FIR registered for offences punishable under Sections 420,120-B and 506 of IPC, was allowed by a Single Judge Bench comprising of V.K. Bist, J.

In addition to the writ petition, a compounding application was also filed by the petitioners. In support of the said application, affidavits were filed by both the parties and it was submitted that they have entered into a compromise and the matter had been amicably settled between them. It was further submitted that the respondent no more wanted to press the case against the petitioners and the parties want to live peacefully in future. It was prayed that the offences mentioned in the FIR may be compounded and the proceedings arising therefrom may be quashed.

The High Court referred to the Supreme Court decision in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303, and observed that criminal proceedings can be quashed by the Court, if it is satisfied that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties and they are interested to restore peace and harmony between them. On considering the submissions made on behalf of the parties and going through entire material available on record, the Court was satisfied that the matter had been amicably settled between the parties. It was held that the writ petition deserved to be allowed.

Hence, the writ petition was allowed, the above mentioned FIR was quashed and the compounding application was disposed of accordingly. [Rahat Ali v. State of Uttarakhand, 2018 SCC OnLine Utt 156, decided on 07-03-2018]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Delhi High Court: A Single Judge Bench of the Delhi High Court ruled that proceedings under Sections 498-A, 406 read with 34 of the Penal Code, 1860 can be quashed by the High Court upon request of the parties after reaching a settlement agreement  to obtain divorce by mutual consent.

Appellant 1 and Respondent  2 were married but had no issue out of the wedlock. Disputes arose between them, resulting in the FIR bearing No. 0615/2014 alleging offences under Sections 498-A, 406 read with 34  IPC. A petition under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 was also filed. The parties later reached an amicable solution. The petitioner agreed to pay 1 lakh to Respondent 2 for the settlement of all her claims including maintenance. The said petition was withdrawn by Respondent  2.

Respondent 2 stated that she willingly settled the matter and not under any pressure or coercion. The Court was of the view that now that the parties have settled the matter, no further purpose is served in pursuing the matter further. Hence, the petition was disposed of. [Vijay v. State NCT of Delhi, 2017 SCC OnLine Del 9902, decided on 10.08.2017]

Punjab and Haryana High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

Punjab and Haryana High Court: In two subsequent cases decided by the Bench of  Inderjit, J., dealing with offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471  IPC (pertaining to cheating and forgery) and Sections 365, 343, 506 IPC (pertaining to wrongful confinement), the Court decided to quash the FIRs under Section 482 CrPC on the ground that compromise had been concluded between the parties.

The Court thoroughly enquired the factum of compromise between both the parties and held that in case the parties have indeed settled their dispute, the State would have no objection to the quashing of the FIR in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303.

The Court worded its observations in both the cases as, “In a decision, based on compromise, none of the parties is a loser. Rather, compromise not only brings peace and harmony between the parties to a dispute, but also restores tranquility in the society. After considering the nature of offences allegedly committed and the fact that both the parties have amicably settled their dispute, continuance of criminal prosecution would be an exercise in futility, as the chances of ultimate conviction are bleak.” [Manjit Singh Saini v. State of Punjab, 2017 SCC OnLine P&H 1707, decided on 18.07. 2017]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Bombay High Court: Making observations in the Writ Petition filed before the court, as to the conduct of accused and subsequent circumstances, which had fortified the facts of the First Information Report, the Division Bench of Naresh H. Patil and Prakash D. Naik JJ. declined the prayer for quashing of the FIR. The FIR in question was filed by Mehjaben Abbas Khan against Mohd. Faizan Amir Khan under Section 376 and 420 of the Penal Code, 1860. The petitioner who is the accused named in the FIR had sought to quash the FIR on grounds that the parties have amicably settled the dispute.

The facts of the case showed that the accused had induced the complainant to have physical relationship with a false promise of marriage while they lived together in a rented place in Mumbai. He had no intention of marrying her and had left for Uttar Pradesh, his native home, without her knowledge. Further, he even had refused to fulfill his promise of marriage to the complainant.

It was also noted that after the FIR was registered on 2.02.2016, the accused was not available for investigation and had been absconding. It was only after realizing that the FIR had been registered against him and the investigating machinery was looking for him, he came to Mumbai and purportedly solemnised the marriage on 29.04.2016. The Court even noted that the present petition had been filed just the following day i.e. on 30.04.2016 along with the affidavit by complainant giving consent for quashing the FIR.

The Court held that the approach of the accused had been suspicious and though the accused and complainant had solemnised the marriage, it is not inclined to quash the FIR. Upholding the decision of the Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303, the Court held that in respect of serious offences like murder, rape, dacoity etc. and other offences of moral turpitude, “the settlement between the offender and the victim can have no legal sanction at all.”. Therefore, having considered the factual aspects of the FIR and the law laid down by the Apex Court, the conduct of the accused and the subsequent events formed sufficient ground to decline the prayer made in the petition. Hence, the Court dismissed the petition with no order as to costs. [Mohammad Faizan Amir Khan v. State of Maharashtra, 2016 SCC OnLine Bom 5020, Decided on: July 5, 2016]

Jharkhand High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

Jharkhand High Court: With the intent to protect the sanctity of marriage, the Court said that sometimes clash of ego between the couple turns out to be a cause of marital discord, therefore, while dealing with such type of cases, a sincere attempt is required to be made by the concerned Presiding Judge of the Family Court dealing with the case to settle the disputes amicably, if possible, in the very start of the matter.

The Court showed it’s concern on the marital discords resulting in divorce in the matter where the wife had sought reversal of the order of restitution of conjugal rights by taking the plea  that after even giving birth to a son out of this wedlock, the marriage being of 2008, she had completely withdrawn herself from the society of the husband without any reasonable excuse whereas the wife contended that at the time of marriage, she was hardly  20 years old and eager to build up her career, but her husband and his family members, who had initially agreed that they would permit her to go ahead with her further studies, refused and assigned her domestic work. Considering the facts of the case, the Court said that “if an attempt is made, perhaps this young couple can reunite.”

The division bench of Virender Singh J. and  Shree Chandrashekhar CJ., hence, directed the parties to appear in person and then persuaded them to stay together to which the appellant-wife willingly agreed. After 6 weeks the matter was called up again, where the couple made a joint statement that they are staying together very happily and if there was any misunderstanding between them, they have resolved it themselves. The couple also volunteered to work as Para Legal Volunteers (PLVs) Mediators/ Conciliators on behalf of the Jharkhand State Legal Service (JHALSA).

The Court was hence, of the view that this couple would be in abetter position to give effective counseling which would be in the larger interest of the Society. [Priyanka Sarkhel v. Baban Sarkhel, 2016 SCC OnLine Jhar 1620, decided on 17.06.2016]