9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether a decree can be passed on a petition for mutual divorce under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, when one of the petitioners withdraws consent prior to the passing of the decree. 2. The applicability of the doctrine of irretrievable breakdown of marriage in granting divorce under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act. 3. The scope of the Supreme Court's powers under Article 142 of the Constitution in granting divorce by mutual consent. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Withdrawal of Consent under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act: The primary issue addressed in the judgment was whether a decree for mutual divorce can be granted when one party withdraws consent before the decree is passed. According to Section 13B(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, both parties must maintain their consent from the filing of the petition until the decree is issued. The Court referenced the case of Smt. Sureshta Devi v. Om Prakash, where it was held that the consent must subsist until the decree is passed. In this case, the respondent wife withdrew her consent after initially agreeing to the mutual divorce, leading to the dismissal of the petition by the lower courts. 2. Doctrine of Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage: The Court explored the applicability of the doctrine of irretrievable breakdown of marriage, which is not explicitly a ground for divorce under Sections 13 or 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act. The Court reviewed previous judgments, such as Ashok Hurra v. Rupa Bipin Zaveri, where the Supreme Court invoked its extraordinary powers under Article 142 to grant divorce despite the withdrawal of consent, based on the irretrievable breakdown of the marriage. The Court noted that while the doctrine is not a statutory ground for divorce, it has been applied by the Supreme Court in special circumstances to prevent prolonging the agony of the parties involved. 3. Supreme Court's Powers under Article 142: The judgment highlighted the Supreme Court's unique authority under Article 142 of the Constitution to do complete justice in cases where the marriage has broken down irretrievably. This power allows the Supreme Court to grant a decree of divorce by mutual consent even if one party withdraws consent, as seen in several cases like Ashok Hurra and others. The Court emphasized that such powers are exclusive to the Supreme Court and not available to lower courts or High Courts, which must adhere to the statutory requirements of the Hindu Marriage Act. Conclusion and Judgment: In the present case, the Supreme Court exercised its powers under Article 142, considering the parties had been living separately for more than seven years, and the respondent wife had already benefited from property rights transferred by the appellant. The Court found the respondent's stance of wanting to live separately but refusing mutual divorce unacceptable. Therefore, the appeal was allowed, and the impugned judgment of the High Court was set aside. The petition for mutual divorce under Section 13B was accepted, and a decree of divorce was granted, dissolving the marriage from the date of the judgment. No order as to costs was made.
|
