IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Anil K. Narendran, P.G. Ajithkumar, JJ.
Jayaraj R. – Appellant
Versus
Kavya G Nair – Respondent
MAT.APPEAL NO. 444 OF 2022
Decided On : 13-04-2023
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Section 13B - Family Courts Act, 1984 - Section 19(1) - Marriage Laws (Amendment) Act, 1976 - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order XXIII Rule 1 - Appeal - Seeking a decree of divorce by mutual consent - Whether impugned decree of divorce passed by Family Court is vitiated by procedural irregularity - Whether by conducting the proceeding, in manner it did, the Family Court acted contrary to the avowed object of the Family Courts Act, 1984 - Mutual consent to the divorce is a sine qua non for passing a decree for divorce under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act. (Para 13).
Findings of the Court :
Compromise agreement entered into between the parties is produced along with this Appeal without filing a proper application under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The appellant has not sworn to an affidavit, with proper pleadings, to satisfy the mandatory requirements of Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code in order to make out a case for accepting additional documents in the appellate stage. I.A filed for accepting additional documents is only a petition, wherein it is stated that, for the reasons stated in the accompanying Mat. Appeal the additional documents may be accepted on file.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Anil K. Narendran, J.
The appellant is the 1st petitioner in O.P.No.2351 of 2019 on the file of the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram, a joint petition filed by the appellant-husband along with the respondent herein-wife, under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking a decree of divorce by mutual consent to dissolve the marriage solemnised between them on 26.05.2010 at Crown Auditorium, Kallumkadavu, Pathanapuram, in accordance with the customary rites and ceremonies. When that original petition came up for consideration, the respondent herein filed a memo dated 12.04.2021, withdrawing her consent for a decree of divorce by mutual consent. On 22.04.2021, the Family Court noticed that the 2nd petitioner, i.e., the respondent herein, has withdrawn her consent and filed a memo. The 1st petitioner-husband was absent. Further, the parties were continuously absent. Therefore, the Family Court dismissed O.P.No.2351 of 2019 by the judgment and decree dated 22.04.2021. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant is before this Court in this appeal, invoking the provisions under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984.
2. On 28.06.2022, when this appeal came up for admission, this Court issued urgent notice to the respondent by speed post. On 06.10.2022 when the appeal came up for consideration, lower court records were called for.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant-husband and the learned counsel for the respondent-wife.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant relied on the decision of the Apex Court in Anil Kumar Jain v. Maya Jain [(2009) 10 SCC 415], the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Benny v. Mini [2021 (1) KHC 723] and the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Bombay High Court in Prakash Alumal Kalandari v. Jahnavi Prakash Kalandari [AIR 2011 Bom. 119]. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent-wife relied on the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Rajesh R. Nair v. Meera Babu [2014 (1) KHC 83] and referred to paragraph 9 of the Division Bench decision in Benny [2021 (1) KHC 723].
5. The marriage between the appellant and the respondent was solemnised on 26.05.2010, in accordance with the customary rites and ceremonies, and out of the wedlock, a male child was born to them on 15.04.2011, who is presently aged 12 years. Both parties are living separately from 20.06.2017 onwards. According to the appellant, since the marital relationship between the parties has been irretrievably broken down, at the intervention of senior members of the family, well-wishers and mediators, the parties have mutually decided to dissolve their marriage, after settling all the disputes between them. They decided to file a joint petition under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking a decree of divorce by mutual consent. Accordingly, a compromise agreement dated 11.10.2019 was entered into between the parties, which is produced along with this appeal as an additional document, in which the father of the appellant signed as the first witness and the father of the respondent as the second witness.
6. In clause (1) of the agreement dated 11.10.2019, it is stated that the marriage between the appellant and the respondent was solemnised on 26.05.2010 at Crown Auditorium, Pathanapuram in Kollam District, as per Hindu religious custom and practices. Out of that wedlock, a male child named Nishal Jayaraj, who is presently aged 12 years, was born. In clause (2) of the agreement, it is stated that the appellant and the respondent have filed O.P.No.2351 of 2019 before the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram, on 11.10.2019, for dissolving their marriage by mutual consent. As per clause (3) of the agreement, gold ornaments worn by the respondent at the time of marriage have been returned to her, which she had acknowledged. As per clause (4) of the agreement, the custody of the minor child shall be with the respondent and the appellant shall have the right to meet the child at any time and also to c
Ashok Hurra v. Rupa Bipin Zaveri
Chandrakala Menon v. Capt. Vipin Menon
Harcharan Kaur v. Nachhattar Singh
Hitesh Bhatnagar v. Deepa Bhatnagar
Prakash Alumal Kalandari v. Jahnavi Prakash Kalandari
Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra
Santosh Kumari v. Virendra Kumar
Point of law: Requirement under Section 13B(2) of Hindu Marriage Act is the “motion of both parties”.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that mutual consent for divorce must continue until the decree is passed, and the court must be satisfied about the existence of mutual consent bet....
A party may withdraw consent for mutual divorce at any time before the decree, affecting maintenance claims.
The judgment emphasizes the importance of mutual consent for divorce under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and the significance of Rule 31 of the Family Courts (Maharashtra) Rules, 1987....
Unilateral withdrawal of consent for divorce by mutual consent after one party has performed their part of the agreement is not permissible.
The statutory cooling-off period under Section 13-B(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act is directory, allowing for a divorce by mutual consent even at the appellate stage.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that once a party has acted upon the consent terms and fulfilled their obligations, the other party cannot unilaterally withdraw consent unless the....
Withdrawing consent to a mutual divorce under Section 13B(2) of the HMA does not constitute an abuse of process of law, allowing criminal proceedings to continue.
Withdrawal of consent to mutual divorce under Section 13B(2) of the HMA does not constitute abuse of process, as mutual consent must exist at both stages of divorce proceedings.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.