2015 (9) TMI 1763 - SC - Indian Laws

Rejection of prayer for waiving of statutory period of six months prescribed Under Section 13-B(2) of of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for filing second motion - Divorce by mutual consent Under Section 13-B(1) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - whether it is a fit case where in order to give complete justice this Court should exercise power Under Article 142 of the Constitution of India? - HELD THAT - A similar question came for consideration before this Court in the case of Vimi Vinod Chopra v. Vinod Gulshan Chopra 2013 (9) TMI 1306 - SUPREME COURT . In that case, after considering the terms of settlement arrived at between the parties, the Court observed 'this is a fit case where we may exercise our jurisdiction Under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to give quietus to the multiple disputes between them as this will enable complete justice between the parties. Consequently, we waive the statutory period and pass the decree of divorce Under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. As a result of this, the marriage solemnised between the parties on 7-8-1993 stands dissolved.' Anxious consideration is given in the matter and the terms of settlement arrived at between the parties and in furtherance of the settlement the Appellant-wife has already received the entire amount of compensation from the Respondent-husband. The satisfaction recorded by the Family Court with regard to the intention of the parties to mutually take divorce also considered and there is no connivance of any of the parties in the decision taken by the Appellant and the Respondent. It is a fit case where in order to do complete justice to the parties it becomes necessary to invoke the power Under Article 142 of the Constitution in an irreconcilable situation. The cooling off period of six months is waived off - a decree of mutual divorce granted to the parties - it is directed that the marriage between the parties shall stand dissolved by mutual consent - appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the Family Court was justified in rejecting the prayer for waiving the statutory period for filing the second motion in a divorce by mutual consent under Section 13-B(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
2. Whether the Supreme Court should exercise its power under Article 142 of the Constitution to waive the cooling off period of six months and grant a decree of mutual divorce in the present case.

Detailed Analysis:
Issue 1:
The appeal before the Supreme Court challenged the order of the Family Court allowing the first motion for divorce by mutual consent but rejecting the prayer for waiving the statutory period of six months for filing the second motion. The parties had filed a joint petition for divorce citing irreconcilable differences and had settled all claims amicably. The Family Court recorded the joint statement and granted the first motion but refused to waive the waiting period for the second motion. The appellant sought relief from the Supreme Court for waiving the prescribed period based on the circumstances of the case.

The Family Court's decision was based on the provisions of Section 13-B(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, which mandates a waiting period of six months between the first and second motions for divorce by mutual consent. The Court considered the intention of the legislature in prescribing this cooling off period to save marriages and ensure that the consent for divorce is genuine and free from coercion. However, the Supreme Court had the authority under Article 142 of the Constitution to waive this statutory period in exceptional cases to ensure complete justice between the parties.

Issue 2:
The Supreme Court, while considering the appeal, referred to previous judgments where it had invoked its powers under Article 142 to grant relief in cases of irretrievable breakdown of marriage and to do complete justice between the parties. The Court analyzed the terms of settlement between the parties, the satisfaction recorded by the Family Court regarding their intention for mutual divorce, and the absence of connivance between the parties. Based on these factors and the unique circumstances of the case, the Supreme Court found it to be a fit case for exercising its power under Article 142 to waive the cooling off period of six months and grant a decree of mutual divorce to the parties, thereby dissolving their marriage by mutual consent.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, waived the statutory cooling off period, and granted a decree of mutual divorce to the parties, exercising its power under Article 142 of the Constitution to ensure complete justice in the case.