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

2022 Supreme(Raj) 2801

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
Mr. Vinit Kumar Mathur, J.
Smt. Gunjan – Appellant
Versus
Kamal Kishore Pahelwani – Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16973/2022
Decided On : 11-11-2022

Advocates Appeared:
Mr. Gajendra Panwar, for the Appellant; Mr. Ashok Patel, for the Respondent

The court has the discretion to waive the statutory period under Section 13-B(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 based on the fulfillment of the conditions set out by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Amardeep Singh’s case.

Headnote:

Waiver of Statutory Period - Hindu Marriage - Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Section 13-B(2) - The court discussed the provisions of Section 13-B(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and the conditions set out by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Amardeep Singh’s case (supra) for waiving the statutory period. The court found that the conditions were fulfilled in the present case, particularly considering the education and awareness of the parties about their rights, and therefore allowed the waiver of the statutory period.

Fact of the Case:

The parties filed a joint application seeking divorce by mutual consent under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. They also filed an application for waiver of the six months’ statutory period specified under Section 13-B(2), which was dismissed by the court below. The parties then filed a writ petition before the High Court, seeking waiver of the statutory period.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the conditions set out by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Amardeep Singh’s case for waiving the statutory period were fulfilled in the present case, and therefore allowed the waiver of the statutory period. The impugned order was set aside, and the application for waiver was allowed. The parties were directed to appear before the court below for the decree of divorce.

Issues: The main issue was whether the court should waive the six months’ statutory period specified under Section 13-B(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, considering the circumstances of the case and the fulfillment of the conditions set out by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Amardeep Singh’s case.

Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Amardeep Singh’s case, which held that the statutory period mentioned in Section 13-B(2) is not mandatory but directory, and the court can exercise its discretion based on the facts and circumstances of each case.

Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, and the impugned order was set aside. The statutory period of six months specified under Section 13-B(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 was waived, and the parties were directed to appear before the court below for the decree of divorce.

ORDER

1. This writ petition has been preferred on behalf of the petitioner being aggrieved with the order dated 31.10.2022 passed by the Family Court No.1, Jodhpur (for short ’the court below’) in Hindu Marriage Case No.806/2022, whereby the joint application filed by the petitioner and the respondent (hereinafter ’parties’) for waiver of six months period prescribed under Section 13-B(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short ’the Act of 1955) has been dismissed.

2. Learned counsel for the respondent Mr. Ashok Patel has submitted that the respondent is also aggrieved with the order impugned and this writ petition has been filed with the consent of the respondent. Mr. Patel has submitted that he has no objection if the relief prayed for in this writ petition is granted.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the marriage of the parties was solemnized as per Hindu customs on 18.07.2021 in Nirali Dhani, District Jodhpur. It appears that soon after the marriage, the relations of the parties became strained and both of them have been residing separately since 2021.

3. Despite the best efforts of the parties to restore conjugal relations and in spite of regular counselling by their near relatives the matrimonial dispute between them could not be settled and therefore the parties jointly filed an application under Section 13-B of the Act of 1955 seeking divorce by mutual consent before the court below on 01.08.2022.

4. The court below registered the said application on 01.08.2022 and fixed the next date as 27.01.2023 for counselling of the parties.

5. In the meantime, the parties preferred a joint application on 27.09.2022, praying for waiver of six months’ statutory period specified under Section 13-B(2) of the Act of 1955. Arguments on the said application were heard and the court below dismissed the said application vide its order dated 31.10.2022.

6. The judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Amardeep Singh Vs. Harveen Kaur, reported in (2017) 8 SCC 746 was placed before the court below, however, the court below observed that since the facts of Amardeep Singh’s case (supra) are distinguishable from the facts of the present case and no extraordinary situation exists in the present case, the application seeking waiver of six months’ statutory period specified under Section 13-B(2) of the Act of 1955 cannot be granted.

7. Being aggrieved with order dated 08.09.2021, the present writ petition has been preferred before this Court.

8. Learned counsel for the parties have submitted that both, the petitioner and the respondent are highly educated persons and both of them have decided to end their marriage by mutual consent after due deliberations. It is also submitted that the decision by the parties to end their marriage has not been taken in a hurry and reconciliation between the parties is highly unlikely. It is further submitted that the conditions set out in Amardeep Singh’s case (supra) under which statutory period of six months, as specified under Section 13-B(2) of the Act of 1955, can be waived are fulfilled in the present case and the court below has erred in refusing waiver of the six months’ statutory period.

9. The counsels for the parties have therefore prayed that the order impugned be set aside and the court below be directed to condone the waiver of the statutory period specified under Section 13-B(2) of the Act of 1955.

10. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order.

11. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Amardeep Singh’s case (supra) has held as under:-

    "19. Applying the above to the present situation, we are of the view that where the Court dealing with a matter is satisfied that a case is made out to waive the statutory period under Section 13-B(2), it can do so after considering the following :

    i) the statutory period of six months specified in Section 13-B(2), in addition to the statutory period of one year under Section 13-B(1) of separation of parties is already over before the firs

    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 Back to top