Nagpur: Taking a stern stand in the case of separation from conjugal life due to which the dependent wife and daughter had been suffering from financial insecurity, the Nagpur based principal family court ordered a businessman to pay a hefty amount of Rs 2.85 crore in lumpsum as subsistence-provision to divorced wife and daughter. Consquently, the wife would get Rs 1.50 crore as one-time settlement payment for 25-year old marriage, and the 24-year old daughter would get Rs 1.35 crore for her maintenance. educational and imminent marital expenses.
Both the parties in the litigation have agreed to take back their cases and police complaints against each other, and not file any new cases against each other. The husband has also consented to hand over the car to his wife which she had used before seeking separation from her husband in year 2012. The daughter would live with mother and the son with father.
The principal family court judge I M Bohari, granting the mutually sought divorce, said in the court order, “No force or pressure was exercised on them for divorce. The marriage counsellor tried to reconcile the dispute between them but the parties agreed for divorce by mutual consent. As there is no possibility of reunion between the parties, so their marriage is irretrievably broken.”
The flashback story of the case is that city-based businessman Maninder married Rashita Kaur on January 25, 1999, and they were glad to have a daughter and a son from their happy married life. But, the differences started taking place between them after a good period of twenty years. As a result, each of them started living separately after Maninder forced his wife Rashita to leave the house on February 25, 2012.
Having no option for survival, Rashita then filed a case of domestic violence with Jaripatka police station, alleging that her druken husband used to beat her. She also alleged that her husband, Maninder, disowned the liability of returning to her the ‘stridhan’ articles as well as gold ornaments given to her by parents during marriage and time-to-time. The police then registered an offence against Maninder, but he approached the Nagpur bench of Bombay High Court and sought the criminal proceedings against him stayed.
Maninder is owner of a petrol outlet and warehouses. He then filed a divorce petition in the court through his advocate Pankaj Tidke under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. He agreed to pay Rs 65,000 per month as subsistence to Rashita. But during the trial of the case in the court some more complaints were filed against him including his extra-marital affairs. Soon, his daughter also filed a case of domestic violence against him.
While cases were pending, both the aggrieved parties were directed to approach the marriage counsellor but they could not get their matter settled. After a period of two years, Maninder (44) and Rashita (43) agreed to seek separation through divorce on terms of one-time settlement in lumpsum amount to be paid to Rashita and daughter. It was agreed that Rashita would take care of daughter while Maninder would take care of son, now 20-year old.
The principal court ruled, “I am satisfied to hold that no reunion is possible between the two, Maninder and Rashita. Their request for grant of divorce by mutual consent appears genuine.”
