Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(AP) 304

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
RAVI NATH TILHARI, CHALLA GUNARANJAN, JJ.
M. Venkata Pulla Rao @ Pulla Rao, S/o. Ranga Rao – Petitioner
Versus
Maddala Udaya Lakshmi, W/o. Venkata Pullarao, D/o. Goona Ramaswamy @ Ramoji – Respondent
I.A.Nos.1 & 2 of 2024 and 1 of 2025 in/and Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1017 Of 2013
Decided On : 19-02-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Venkat Challa
For the Respondents: K Sarva Bhouma Rao.

The waiting period under Section 13-B(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act is directory, allowing courts to grant divorce by mutual consent without delay when reconciliation is impossible.

Headnote:
(A) Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Sections 13(1)(ia) and 13-B - Appeal against dismissal of divorce petition - The appellant sought divorce on grounds of cruelty, which was dismissed by the lower court - The parties later reached a compromise for mutual consent divorce. (Paras 2, 3, 4, 24)

(B) Divorce by Mutual Consent - The court held that the waiting period under Section 13-B(2) is directory, allowing for waiver in cases where reconciliation is impossible and parties have settled their differences. (Paras 16, 20, 24)

Facts of the case:
The appellant filed for divorce citing cruelty, which was dismissed. The parties, having lived separately for over nine years, reached a compromise for mutual consent divorce, including terms for permanent alimony. (Paras 2, 7, 11)

Findings of Court:
The court found that the marriage had irretrievably broken down, and the parties had settled their differences amicably, allowing for immediate divorce without the waiting period. (Paras 24, 26)

Issues: The main issues included the validity of the compromise for divorce and the applicability of the waiting period under Section 13-B(2). (Paras 12, 24)

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the waiting period under Section 13-B(2) is not mandatory but directory, allowing for immediate divorce when reconciliation is impossible. (Paras 16, 20, 24)

Result: The appeal is allowed, and the marriage is dissolved under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act.

JUDGMENT :

(Ravi Nath Tilhari, J.)

Heard Sri P.Ravikanth, learned counsel representing Sri Venkat Challa, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Ramji Varma, learned counsel representing Sri K.Sarva Bhouma Rao, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. This appeal under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 has been filed by the appellant/husband being aggrieved from the dismissal of his petition seeking divorce by an order dated 02.07.2013 in OP.No.124 of 2010 by the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Rajahmundry. The OP was filed by the appellant/husband under Section 13 (1) (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking divorce on the ground of cruelty. After contest, the OP was dismissed, holding that there was no merit in the petition to grant divorce.

3. During the pendency of the appeal, I.A.No.2 of 2024 was filed to record the memorandum of compromise dated 05.09.2024 and to set aside the order dated 02.07.2013 in OP No.124 of 2010 in terms of the compromise and thereby dissolving the marriage dated 17.12.2004.

4. The Memorandum of compromise containing Terms of Compromise are annexed to I.A.No.2 of 2024 and are signed by both the parties and their respective counsels.

5. I.A.No.1 of 2024 was also filed with affidavit to permit the appellant to file compromise petition.

6. I.A.No.1 of 2025 has further been filed to waive the waiting period of six months under Section 13-B (2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, and to allow the HMOP No.124 of 2010 in terms of the compromise and Mediated Settlement Agreement dated 31.12.2024 and grant divorce.

7. In terms of memorandum of compromise, both the parties are residing separately after two years of marriage. They have one daughter. There is no relationship of husband and wife between them after two years of marriage. The husband issued notice seeking divorce and the wife filed Crl.No.64 of 2010 under Section 498A IPC, which finally resulted in acquittal in C.C.No.760 of 2010 by the Court of II Additional Judicial Magistrate 1^st Class, Tanuku against which Crl.A.No.179 of 2016 was allowed by the learned Sessions judge, Eluru, which resulted in conviction of the husband against which the Crl.A.No.786 of 2017 filed by husband is pending in this Court. The parties have decided to take divorce by mutual consent by arriving at compromise.

8. The terms of compromise, as per para-2 of Memorandum of Compromise, are as under:

“2. It is submitted that at the intervention of elders, the parties have compromised with the following conditions and have reduced the terms of compromise into writing.

Now this deed of memorandum of compromise witnesseth as follows

1) Both the parties are agreed to dissolve the marriage by mutual consent and the decree of divorce comes into effect immediately.

2) Both the parties have agreed, that the Petitioner shall pay Rs. 15,00,000/- to the Respondent in which he had already paid Rs.5,00,000/- vide a D.D.No.919422 which was revalidated on 22-07-2024 and the same was received by the daughter towards her permanent alimony and the remaining Rs.10,00,000/- shall be paid to the Respondent at the time of Compromise in return both the Respondent and the daughter have agreed not to make any claims against the Petitioner or his family members.

3) The same was recorded in the proceedings before Il Addl Judicial 15t Class Magistrate in M.C.No.102 of 2011 and accordingly, the compromise was allowed.

4) It is submitted that, as per the said understanding, the Petitioner shall pay the rest of amount of Rs. 10,00,000 to the Respondent on the day when the Criminal Appeal is allowed and the judgement and the order of the sentence rendered against the Petitioner is set aside by this Court in Criminal Appeal No. 786 of 2017.

5) It is submitted that both the parties have no claim against each other and each of them can lead independent life and neither of the parties would intervene in the life of the other and it is specifically agreed that both of them have no claim against each other.

6) Each clause