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

2022 Supreme(P&H) 73

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
ARCHANA PURI, J.
Amit - Appellant
Versus
Preeti - Respondent
CM-761-CII-2022 in/and CR No. 3270 of 2021 (O&M)
Decided On : 08-02-2022

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Bhawesh Chaudhary.
For the Respondent: Mr. Sanjay Vashisth.

The statutory waiting period under Section 13-B(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act is not mandatory but directory, and the court has discretion to waive the waiting period based on the facts and circumstances of each case.

Headnote:

Divorce - Hindu Marriage Act - Section 13-B - Amardeep Singh vs. Harveen Kaur, 2017 (8) SCC 746, Amit Kumar vs. Suman Beniwal, 2022 (1) RCR (Civil) 569

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners sought preponement of the date of hearing of their divorce case. The lower court had declined their joint application for waiver of the statutory period of six months for recording the statements of second motion.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the parties had settled all disputes regarding maintenance, alimony, and had been living separately due to irreconcilable differences. The court set aside the lower court's order and requested to prepone the case for recording the statements of second motion.

Issues: The main issue was the waiver of the statutory period of six months for recording the statements of second motion in a divorce case by mutual consent.

Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the judgments in Amardeep Singh vs. Harveen Kaur and Amit Kumar vs. Suman Beniwal, emphasizing that the statutory waiting period under Section 13-B(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act is not mandatory but directory. The court considered factors such as the length of marriage, efforts at reconciliation, and settlement of disputes in exercising its discretion to waive the waiting period.

Final Decision: The revision petition was allowed, and the lower court was requested to prepone the case for recording the statements of parties and pass the appropriate order.

JUDGMENT :

Archana Puri, J.

1. The matter has been taken up through video conferencing in the light of COVID-19 pandemic.

CM-761-CII-2022

2. The present application has been filed for preponement of date of hearing of the main case, which is fixed for 21.02.2022.

3. In view of the averments made in the application, the same is allowed and the main case i.e. CR-3270-2021 is taken for hearing today itself.

CR-3270-2021

4. Challenge in the present revision petition is to the order dated 22.11.2021 (Annexure P-4), passed by learned Addl. Principal Judge, Family Court, whereby an joint application filed by the parties for waiver of the statutory period of six months for recording the statements of second motion, has been declined.

5. The material facts of the case are as follows:-

That, marriage between parties i.e. Amit and Preeti, was solemnized on 29.06.2020, at village Bairan, Tehsil Loharu, District Bhiwani. However, they could not live together due to temperamental differences and they are residing separate since 16.08.2020. Considering the broken status of their marriage, they filed the petition for seeking divorce by mutual consent under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act on 17.09.2021. On that very day, statements of first motion were recorded and the case was further adjourned to 18.03.2022 for recording the statements of the parties of second motion. However, during the pendency of the petition, a joint application was filed by both the petitioners, thereby seeking waiver of statutory wait of six months.

6. Vide impugned order dated 22.11.2021, the above-said application seeking waiver of statutory wait of six months was dismissed.

7. Feeling aggrieved by the above-said order, present petition has been filed.

8. Now, both the counsel for the petitioners submitted in unison that due to incompatibility and different temperaments, the petitioners could not live together and they are residing separate since 16.08.2020. Both of them lived together for small span of time, after marriage. Considering the broken status of the marriage, divorce petition by mutual consent had been filed. All terms of separation have been duly complied between them. Even, an amount of Rs.7,33,000/- has been received by petitioner No.2 from petitioner No.1. Also, it is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner No.2 that she has applied for the post of Teacher in Rajasthan and she has qualified REET-2021 examination. There is provision of reservation for divorced ladies for selection for the above-said post and if the statement of second motion could be recorded on earlier date, then she could seek the benefit of reservation in the said examination.

9. Learned lower Court had dismissed the application for seeking waiver of statutory period of six months as it is observed that the condition as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Amardeep Singh vs. Harveen Kaur, 2017 (8) SCC 746, have not been complied with. Moreover, there is no document coming on record with regard to the qualification of petitioner No.2 to REET-2021 examination.

10. In Amardeep Singh's case (supra), so relied upon by the lower Court, the Hon'ble Supreme Court 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 13B(1) of separation of parties is already over before the first motion itself;

(ii) All efforts for mediation/conciliation including efforts in terms of Order 32A Rule 3 CPC/Section 23(2) of the Act/Section 9 of the Family Courts Act to reunite the parties have failed and there is no likelihood of success in that direction by any further efforts;

(iii) The parties have genuinely settled their differences including alimony, custody of ch

    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