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

1988 Supreme(Del) 61

S.B.WAD
SWANTANTRA VED SAHNI – Appellant
Versus
SANTOSH KUMARI – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
M.G.KAPUR, P.N.TALVAR

S. B. Wad, J.

( 1 ) A neat question of law arises tor consideration in this appeal, viz. where the two parties who have filed a joint petition for divorce by mutual consent under Section 13-B (1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, can the divorce be granted by the matrimonial court on a motion only by one of the spouses under Section 13-B (2) of the Act ?

( 2 ). A joint petition for dissolution of the marriage by mutual consent was moved by the petitioner and the respondent on 10-8-1983. On 4-9-1984 the husband alone tiled the petition under Section 13-B (2) of the Act. The wife did not join the proceedings or in other words did not consent for the second motion to be made under the said sub-section. The learned ADJ dismissed the petition filed by the husband holding that if one of the parties with held the consent a decree for divorce cannot be granted under the said sub-section. On the facts of the case the learned Judge also opined that there was every likelihood that the wife had joined the petition under Section 13-B (1) without her free consent. The learned Judge has disagreed with the two decisions cited before him. They are: Jayashree Ramesh Loadha v. Rameshbhikaji Loadha, (1984) D.



































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
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 telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top