1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION  

CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 255-256   OF 2011

(Arising out of SLP(Crl.) Nos. 7672-7673/2009)

VEENA                                     Appellant(s)

                    :VERSUS:

STATE GOVT. OF NCT, DELHI AND ANR.         Respondent(s)

O R D E R

Leave granted.

The appellant Veena and respondent No.2 – Jagdish  

Prasad  are  present  in  Court.  They  were  married  on  

30.9.1998. Out of the wedlock, they have one daughter who  

is in the custody of the appellant Veena.  

It  is  not  disputed  that  the  parties  have  been  

living separately for over 10 years and reconciliation is  

not possible now. Both the appellant Veena and respondent  

No.2 Jagdish Prasad pray that a decree of divorce by  

mutual consent be granted.  

2

The appellant Veena undertakes to withdraw all the  

cases filed by her against Jagdish Prasad and his family  

members, including the one filed under Section 498A of  

the  I.P.C.,  within  two  weeks  from  today.  She  also  

undertakes not to claim any maintenance for her daughter  

or for herself.   

Respondent  No.2  Jagdish  Prasad  undertakes  to  

withdraw Case No.248/2004 P.S. Golakpuri, under Section  

340 of the Cr.P.C., pending before the Court of Shri  

Rakesh  Pandit,  Metropolitan  Magistrate,  Karkardooma  

Courts, Delhi, within two weeks from today.  

We have heard the learned counsel for the parties  

and talked to the parties. The appellant has filed a  

divorce petition under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu  

Marriage  Act,  1955,  being  HMA  No.397/2008  which  is  

pending before the Court of Sanjeev Mattu, Additional  

District  Judge,  Karkardooma  Courts,  Delhi.  In  the  

peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, we deem it  

appropriate to transfer the said divorce petition to this  

Court  and  take  the  same  on  Board.  The  said  divorce  

petition is converted into one under Section 13B of the  

Hindu Marriage Act and we grant divorce to the parties by  

mutual consent.

3

We direct that the custody of the daughter would  

continue to remain with the appellant.   

We  may  observe  that  the  mere  filing  of  the  

petition by the appellant would not come in the way of  

the father of respondent No.2 receiving pensionary and  

other benefits  which are permissible them under law.

With  these  observations,  these  appeals  are  

disposed of.  

.....................J (DALVEER BHANDARI)

.....................J (DEEPAK VERMA)

New Delhi; January 28, 2011.