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

2007 Supreme(Ker) 217

Judges : KURIAN JOSEPH,T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
Dr.A.Rekharani - Appellant
Versus
K.C.Prabhu - Respondent
Case No : Mat Appeal No.87 of 2007
Decided On : 04/07/2007
Advocates Appeared :
For the Petitioner : R. Sudhir, Advocate. For the Respondent: D. Sajeev, Advocate.

The main legal point established is that a petition for dissolution of marriage by mutual consent under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act must be presented by both parties to the marriage together, and evidence cannot be tendered through a power of attorney holder in matters requiring personal knowledge.

Headnote:

Power of Attorney - Dissolution of Marriage - Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Section 13B - The court discussed the requirements for dissolution of marriage by mutual consent under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, emphasizing that the petition must be presented by both parties to the marriage together and that the consent must persist during the lie over period. The court also highlighted that evidence cannot be tendered through a power of attorney holder in matters requiring personal knowledge.

Fact of the Case:

The appellant filed a petition for dissolution of marriage by mutual consent under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, represented by a power of attorney holder. The Family Court granted a decree of divorce by mutual consent, but the appellant contested, stating that she did not consent to the divorce and procedural requirements were not satisfied.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the power of attorney holder deposed regarding personal matters requiring personal knowledge, which was not permissible. It held that the court lacked jurisdiction to grant the decree as the pre-conditions were not satisfied and the approach made by the Family Court was erroneous and casual.

Issues: The issues revolved around the entitlement of a power of attorney holder to present a petition for dissolution of marriage by mutual consent and whether the procedural requirements under Section 13B were satisfied.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that a petition under Section 13B for divorce by mutual consent must be presented by both parties to the marriage together, and the consent must persist during the lie over period. It also reiterated that evidence cannot be tendered through a power of attorney holder in matters requiring personal knowledge.

Final Decision: The judgment in the Family Court was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.

Judgment :-

Kurian Joseph, J.

Whether a power of attorney holder is entitled to present a petition for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce by mutual consent under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 is the interesting question arising for consideration in this case. The marriage between the appellant and the respondent was duly solemnized on 29.10.2001. After three years, on the grounds of illicit relationship with another person, and cruelty, the appellant filed O.P.(HMA) No.1470/04 before the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram (later transferred to the Family Court, Nedumangad) seeking a decree of divorce under Section 13(1)(i) and (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act. In the meanwhile, the appellant left for Gulf. However, she executed a power of attorney, appointing her father as the power of attorney holder to prosecute the case before the Family Court. According to the appellant, O.P.(HMA) No.1470/04 was got dismissed as not pressed on 17.12.2005 and on the same day, a joint petition for dissolution of marriage by mutual consent was filed under Section 13B of the Act. The appellant was represented through the power of attorney holder and the respondent appeared in person. The Family Court took the statements of the appellant's father, the donee of power of attorney, and the respondent-husband on the same day and by order dated 20.12.2005, a decree was passed dissolving the marriage by a decree of divorce by mutual consent. At the risk of redundancy of the factual matrix, in order to appreciate the stand taken by the Family Court, it is necessary to extract two paragraphs from the judgment under appeal, which read as follows :-

"4. The statements of both the Power of Attorney Holder of the 1st petitioner and the 2nd petitioner were recorded. Their statements show that petitioners 1 and 2 got legally married on 29.10.2001 and thereafter they resided together as husband and wife and that due to incompatibility of temperaments they are residing separately from 16.7.2004 onwards. The statements also show that the petitioners have decided to dissolve their marriage by mutual consent and that their decision is not vitiated by fraud, collusion, undue influence or mis-representation. It is also clear that the marital tie is irretrievably broken and it is practically and emotionally dead and that there is no chance for any reunion. Hence the statutory requirement of waiting for a period of 6 months is waived. No children were born in the wedlock. All financial matters between the parties are settled.

5. The marriage has been broken down and the parties can no longer live together as husband and wife. In the circumstances the life of the spouses shall not be allowed to put in perpetual agony and despair. Hence it may be better to bring the marriage to an end. Therefore, the O.P. is allowed." (emphasis supplied)

2. According to the appellant-wife, she met the respondent on several occasions at Thiruvananthapuram in the meanwhile and she has not given consent for a divorce. It is also contended that the procedural requirements have not been satisfied. Hence the appeal.

3. Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 reads as follows :-

" 13B. Divorce by mutual consent.--(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act a petition for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce may be presented to the district court by both the parties to a marriage together, whether such marriage was solemnised before or after the commencement of the Marriage Laws (Amendment) Act, 1976 (68 of 1976), 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 meanti







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

AI

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