9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 1763X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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. - M.Y. Eqbal And C. Nagappan, JJ. For the Appellant : Nirmal Chopra, Adv. For the Respondents : Jatin Sapra, Adv. for Debasis Misra, Adv. JUDGMENT M.Y. EQBAL, J. 1. Leave g ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... escribed period of six months. 6. For better appreciation, the order passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, South Saket, New Delhi is extracted hereinbelow: 1.0 Smt. Soni Kumari and Sh. Deepak Kumar, both the Petitioners, have jointly filed this petition Under Section 13-B(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) for Soni Kumari and Deepak Kumar dissolution of their marriage by a decree of divorce consent. 2.0 This Court made sincere efforts for reconciliation between the parties; but, the efforts for reconciliation yielded no fruitful result. Both the Petitioners submitted that they have made up their mind to part ways and take divorce by mutual consent, in terms of the compromise effected between them. Consequently, the joint statement of the Petitioners was recorded today i.e. 14.07.2015. 3.0 I have heard both the sides and have also carefully perused the entire material on the record including the joint statement of the Petitioners. 4.0 Petitioners have testified that marriage between them was solemnized on 27.11.2009 at Maharaj Ganj, Madhubani, Bihar according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. Proof of marriage-marriage photograph is Ex. P1 ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at before passing the impugned order Under Section 13-B(1) of the Act, the Family Court made necessary efforts for reconciliation between the parties but the efforts yielded no fruitful result. The Family Court, before passing the order, carefully perused the entire materials on the record including the joint statement of the parties. It has also not been disputed that the Respondent-husband has to leave India for his job purpose and once he goes out of the country, it would not be possible for him to return back in a year or two. In the event the Respondent is not returned within the stipulated time for second motion then the Appellant-wife would not only suffer mental agony but would also be not able to remarry. 8. In these facts, the only point to be considered is as to 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. A similar question came for consideration before this Court in the case of Vimi Vinod Chopra v. Vinod Gulshan Chopra (2013) 15 SCC 547. In that case, after considering the terms of settlement arrived at between the parties, the Court observed: 7. Since the parties have ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... made to a decision of this Court in the case of Anil Kumar Jain v. Maya Jain (2009) 10 SCC 415, where it has been held as under: 29. In the ultimate analysis the aforesaid discussion throws up two propositions. The first proposition is that although irretrievable breakdown of marriage is not one of the grounds indicated whether Under Sections 13 or 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for grant of divorce, the said doctrine can be applied to a proceeding under either of the said two provisions only where the proceedings are before the Supreme Court. In exercise of its extraordinary powers Under Article 142 of the Constitution the Supreme Court can grant relief to the parties without even waiting for the statutory period of six months stipulated in Section 13-B of the aforesaid Act. This doctrine of irretrievable breakdown of marriage is not available even to the High Courts which do not have powers similar to those exercised by the Supreme Court Under Article 142 of the Constitution. Neither the civil courts nor even the High Courts can, therefore, pass orders before the periods prescribed under the relevant provisions of the Act or on the grounds not provided for in Sections 13 an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
