1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION  

CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 1071-1072   OF 2011

(Arising out of SLP(Crl.) Nos.1510-1511/2009)

RITESH SAXENA & ANR.                      Appellant(s)

                    :VERSUS:

KIRTI SRIVASTAVA                          Respondent(s)

(With CRL.M.P. Nos.18091-18092/2010)

O R D E R

1. Leave granted.

2. We  have  heard  the  learned  counsel  for  the  

Parties.

3. During  the  pendency  of  these  matters,  the  

parties were referred for mediation. At our request  

Mrs. Indira Jaisingh, learned Additional Solicitor  

General  and  Ms.  Aparna  Bhat,  Advocate  agreed  to  

mediate in this matter and by their efforts, the  

parties have agreed to obtain a decree of divorce by  

mutual consent. They undertake to withdraw all the  

allegations  made  against  each  other  in  the

2

proceedings.  This  is  a  part  of  the  settlement  

between the parties before this Court.     

4. By the consent of the parties, the following  

cases are transferred to this Court:  

(i) G & WC No.189 of 2006, pending before  

the Family Court Judge at Bangalore;

(ii) M.C. No.1941 of 2007, pending before  

the Family Court Judge at Bangalore;

(iii) Crl. Misc. No.130 of 2008, pending  

before  the  Metropolitan  Magistrate  1,  Traffic  

Court, Mayo Hall, Bangalore;

(iv) Criminal Appeal Nos.25129 & 25130 of  

2009,  pending  before  the  Additional  Civil  &  

Sessions Judge (FTC-3), Mayo Hall, Bangalore.   

5. We  have  heard  the  learned  counsel  for  the  

parties and talked to both the appellant and the  

respondent. In the peculiar facts and circumstances  

of these cases, we deem it appropriate to grant  a  

decree of divorce to the parties by mutual consent  

disposing of all the cases.  

6. Accordingly,  M.C.  No.1941  of  2007  is  also  

taken  on  Board  and  we  convert  it  to  one  under  

Section  13B  of  the  Hindu  Marriage  Act  and  grant  

divorce to the parties by mutual consent.

3

7. We  make  it  clear  that  the  appellant  Ritesh  

Saxena will have visitation rights to meet his son  

from 10.00 a.m. to 6.00 p.m. on two Sundays in a  

month,  at  the  residence  of  the  respondent  Kirti  

Srivastava.  In  case,  for  any  reason,  it  is  not  

possible  to  have  visitation  on  any  particular  

Sunday, then it would be on the following Saturday  

for  the  same  time.  The  appellant  Ritesh  Saxena  

would  be  at  liberty  to  move  the  Family  Court  at  

Bangalore  after  one  year,  for  longer  visitation  

rights,  particularly  during  school  holidays.  The  

Family Court, after hearing all the parties, would  

decide the request of the appellant for permitting  

the child to stay for some time with the appellant  

during school holidays.   

8. The  appellant  Ritesh  Saxena  is  directed  to  

continue to pay the maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per  

month to the respondent Kirti Shrivastava and the  

same shall be paid before 10th of every month.  

9. With these observations and directions, these  

appeals along with Crl.M.Ps. and all the transferred

4

cases are disposed of.

10. The learned Additional Solicitor General Ms.  

Indira Jaisingh and Ms. Aparna Bhat, Advocate have  

spared  their  valuable  time  in  exploring  amicable  

settlement in this matter at our request. We place  

on  record  our  appreciation  for  their  efforts.  We  

also appreciate the positive approach of the learned  

counsel appearing for the parties.   

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

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

New Delhi; April 29, 2011.