9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (12) TMI 1507X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erve no purpose except to prolong their agony. In SONI KUMARI VERSUS DEEPAK KUMAR [ 2015 (9) TMI 1763 - SUPREME COURT] , this Court exercised its power Under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to waive the statutory waiting period of six months, where the wife had received the entire compensation of Rs. 15 lacs in full and final settlement of her claims as per the settlement arrived at between the parties, and further granted a decree of divorce to the parties by mutual consent. In this Case, the parties are both well-educated and highly placed government officers. They have been married for about 15 months. The marriage was a non-starter. Admittedly, the parties lived together only for three days, after which they have separated on account of irreconcilable differences. The parties have lived apart for the entire period of their marriage except three days. It is jointly stated by the parties that efforts at reconciliation have failed. The parties are unwilling to live together as husband and wife. Even after over 14 months of separation, the parties still want to go ahead with the divorce. No useful purpose would be served by making the parties wait, except to prolong their ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 76), on the ground that they have been living separately for a period of one year or more, that they have not been able to live together and that they have mutually agreed that the marriage should be dissolved. (2) On the motion of both the parties made not earlier than six months after the date of the presentation of the petition referred to in Sub-section (1) and not later than eighteen months after the said date, if the petition is not withdrawn in the meantime, the court shall, on being satisfied, after hearing the parties and after making such inquiry as it thinks fit, that a marriage has been solemnised and that the averments in the petition are true, pass a decree of divorce declaring the marriage to be dissolved with effect from the date of the decree. 5. In terms of Section 13B(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, the parties to a marriage might file a petition for dissolution of marriage, by decree of divorce by mutual consent, on the ground that that they have been living separately for a period of one year or more, and that they have not been able to live together and have mutually agreed that the marriage should be dissolved. 6. Sub-section (2) of Section 13B of the Hindu Mar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g: 1) The statutory period of six months specified in Section 13B(2) in addition to the statutory period of one year Under Section 13B of separation of parties is already over before the first motion itself. 2) ..... 3) ..... 4) .... 6. In the present case, the statement of first motion was recorded on 30.09.2021 and the parties are residing separately since 13.09.2020. Meaning thereby on the date of recording the statement of first motion, the period of separation of 18 months was not complete. The present case is not covered by the guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in para No. 19 of the judgment. In such circumstances, this Court cannot grant permission for waiving off the stipulated period of six months Under Section 13B(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act. The application is accordingly dismissed being devoid of merits and not maintainable. Now the file be put upon 04.04.2022 for the purpose already fixed i.e., for recording statement of second motion of the parties. 11. The Appellant filed a Civil Revisional Application Under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, being CR 2527-2021 (O M) in the High Court, challenging the aforesaid order dated 12th October 202 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the above, the revision petition has no merit and is dismissed. 13. Section 13B(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act read with Section 13B(2) envisages a total waiting period of 1 years from the date of separation to move the motion for a decree of divorce. The High Court correctly found that Section 13B(2) is directory, but rejected the Criminal Revisional Application with the observation that the Family Court had no option but to dismiss the application for waiving the waiting period of six months, since the condition of waiting for 1 years from the date of separation for moving the motion for passing of a decree of divorce had not been fulfilled. 14. The provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act evince an inherent respect for the institution of marriage, which contemplates the sacramental union of a man and a woman for life. However, there may be circumstances in which it may not reasonably be possible for the parties to the marriage to live together as husband and wife. 15. The Hindu Marriage Act, therefore has provisions for annulment of marriage in specified circumstances, which apply to marriages which are not valid in the eye of law and provisions of judicial separation and dissoluti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ility of reconciliation, it would be meaningless to prolong the agony of the parties to the marriage. Thus, if the marriage has broken down irretrievably, the spouses have been living apart for a long time, but not been able to reconcile their differences and have mutually decided to part, it is better to end the marriage, to enable both the spouses to move on with the life. 20. In Amardeep Singh v. Harveen Kaur (2017) 8 SCC 746, relied upon by the Family Court and the High Court, this Court held: 19. Applying the above to the present situation, we are of the view that where the court dealing with a matter is satisfied that a case is made out to waive the statutory period Under Section 13-B(2), it can do so after considering the following: (i) The statutory period of six months specified in Section 13-B(2), in addition to the statutory period of one year Under Section 13-B(1) of separation of parties is already over before the first motion itself; (ii) All efforts for mediation/conciliation including efforts in terms of Order 32-A Rule 3 CPC/Section 23(2) of the Act/Section 9 of the Family Courts Act to reunite the parties have failed and there is no likelihood of success in that d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... period would serve no purpose except to prolong their agony. 24. In Devinder Singh Narula v. Meenakshi Nangia (2012) 8 SCC 580, this Court observed: 8. We have carefully considered the submissions made on behalf of the parties and have also considered our decision in Anil Kumar Jain case [Anil Kumar Jain v. Maya Jain, (2009) 10 SCC 415: (2009) 4 SCC (Civ) 226]. It is no doubt true that the legislature had in its wisdom stipulated a cooling off period of six months from the date of filing of a petition for mutual divorce till such divorce is actually granted, with the intention that it would save the institution of marriage. It is also true that the intention of the legislature cannot be faulted with, but there may be occasions when in order to do complete justice to the parties it becomes necessary for this Court to invoke its powers Under Article 142 in an irreconcilable situation. In fact, in Kiran v. Sharad Dutt [Kiran v. Sharad Dutt, (2000) 10 SCC 243], which was considered in Anil Kumar Jain case [Anil Kumar Jain v. Maya Jain, (2009) 10 SCC 415: (2009) 4 SCC (Civ) 226], after living separately for many years and 11 years after initiating the proceedings Under Section 13 of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ck; (viii) whether the parties had freely, of their own accord, without any coercion or pressure, arrived at a genuine settlement which took care of alimony, if any, maintenance and custody of children, etc.. 28. In this Case, as observed above, the parties are both well-educated and highly placed government officers. They have been married for about 15 months. The marriage was a non-starter. Admittedly, the parties lived together only for three days, after which they have separated on account of irreconcilable differences. The parties have lived apart for the entire period of their marriage except three days. It is jointly stated by the parties that efforts at reconciliation have failed. The parties are unwilling to live together as husband and wife. Even after over 14 months of separation, the parties still want to go ahead with the divorce. No useful purpose would be served by making the parties wait, except to prolong their agony. 29. The appeal is, therefore, allowed. The impugned order dated 17th November, 2021 passed by the High Court and the impugned order dated 12th October, 2021 passed by the Family Court, Hissar are set aside. 30. In the facts and circumstances of this c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
