SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2017 Supreme(SC) 1184

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
R.K. AGRAWAL, ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, JJ.
A.V.G.V. Ramu - Appellant
Versus
A.S.R. Bharathi - Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 22913 of 2017 (Arising Out of SLP (C) No. 31476 of 2016)
Decided On : 14-12-2017

Headnote:Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Section 13-B r/w Article 142, Constitution of India – Both parties entering into Agreement/MOU to dissolve their marriage by mutual consent duly affixing their signatures – Respondent neither denying her signature nor contents of the Agreement/MOU – Never withdrawing from the agreement – Not appearing before High Court nor filing any affidavit – Living separately for four years – Neither appearing or being represented before Supreme Court – Held, respondent not interested in keeping the marital relation alive – Agreement/MOU and its contents held genuine – Decree of dissolution of marriage passed under article 142. (Para 11, 12)

       Facts of the case:

       The appellant is the husband whereas the respondent is the wife. Both have married second time. The husband has one daughter aged around 7 years from his first marriage whereas the respondent has no issue from the first marriage or the second one. The marriage in question took place on 11.08.2013.

       The second marriage also did not go well. The appellant and the respondent had several differences soon after the marriage, which eventually resulted in their living separately which continued till date.

       On 30.12.2014, the appellant and the respondent entered into an Agreement/MOU for dissolution of their marriage with consent and filed an application under Section 13-B of the Act before the Family Court on 31.12.2014. Thereafter the case was adjourned for 06.07.2015, 07.07.2015 and 12.09.2015. The respondent, however, did not appear on any of these dates. The Family Judge on 14.09.2015 took up the case on expiry of six months’ cooling period and finding that the respondent did not appear in the proceedings dismissed the application.

       The appellant filed appeal in the High Court. In the said appeal, learned counsel appearing for the respondent (wife) stated that her client (wife) does not give consent for dissolution of marriage. The High Court, therefore, dismissed the appeal.

       Finding of the Court:

       Respondent wife not interested in keeping the marital relation alive.

       Result: Appeal allowed.

JUDGMENT :

Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal is filed by the husband against the final judgment and order dated 29.08.2016 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh in F.C.A. No. 131 of 2016 whereby the High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant herein against the order dated 14.09.2015 passed by the Family Court, Hyderabad in O.P. No.9 of 2015 dismissing the petition filed by both the parties for mutual divorce under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”).

3. Facts of the case lie in a narrow compass so also the issue involved in the appeal is very short. It would be clear from the narration of the facts infra.

4. The appellant is the husband whereas the respondent is the wife. Both have married second time. The husband has one daughter aged around 7 years from his first marriage whereas the respondent has no issue from the first marriage or the second one. The marriage in question took place on 11.08.2013.

5. Unfortunately, the second marriage also did not go well. The appellant and the respondent had several differences soon after the marriage, which eventually resulted in their living separately which continued till date.

6. On 30.12.2014, the appellant and the respondent with a view to end all disputes and their marriage entered into an Agreement/MOU (Annexure-P-8) for dissolution of their marriage with consent and agreed to make an application under Section 13-B of the Act.

7. Pursuant thereto both, the appellant and respondent, filed an application under Section 13-B of the Act before the Family Court at Hyderabad on 31.12.2014 being O.P. No. 9/2015. Thereafter the case was adjourned for 06.07.2015, 07.07.2015 and 12.09.2015. The respondent, however, did not appear on any of these dates. The Family Judge, however, on 14.09.2015 took up the case on expiry of six months’ cooling period and finding that the respondent did not appear in the proceedings dismissed the application.

8. The appellant felt aggrieved and filed appeal under Section 28 of the Act in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh out of which this appeal arises. In the said appeal, learned counsel appearing for the respondent (wife) stated that her client (wife) does not give consent for dissolution of marriage. The High Court, therefore, dismissed the appeal by impugned judgment, which has given rise to filing of this appeal by way of special leave in this Court by the husband.

9. Notice of this appeal was sent to the respondent. Despite service, no one appeared for the respondent on any of the dates of hearing of this appeal.

10. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and on perusal of the record of the case, we are of the considered opinion to allow the appeal and while setting aside of the judgment/order of the Family Court and the High Court allow the application made by the appellant and the respondent under Section 13-B of the Act and dissolve their marriage in terms of the Agreement/MOU dated 30.12.2014. This we prefer to do with the aid of our powers under Article 142 of the Constitution and also for the reasons given below.

11. First, the parties have admittedly entered into an Agreement/MOU dated 30.12.2014 (Annexure-P-8) agreeing therein to get their marriage dissolved by obtaining decree from the Court. Second, the Agreement/MOU bears the signatures of the appellant and respondent. Third, respondent never denied her signature on the Agreement/MOU nor its execution and nor its contents. Fourth, both the parties pursuant to Agreement/MOU actually filed an application under Section 13-B of the Act seeking dissolution of their marriage duly signed. Fifth, the respondent never stated before the Family Court during the cooling period of six months that she wants to wriggle out of the application and does not wish to give her consent for mutual divorce. Sixth, the respondent also did not ap



Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top