Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(P&H) 955

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Lisa Gill, Ritu Tagore, JJ.
Supinder Singh - Appellant - Appellant
Versus
Amandeep Kaur - Respondent - Respondent
FAO-4489 of 2022(O&M)
Decided On : 28-02-2023

Advocates appeared:
Mr. Amit Arora, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. I.S.Brar, Advocate for the respondent.

Exceptional hardship can justify the entertainment of a petition for divorce by mutual consent under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act before the expiry of one year from the date of marriage.

Headnote:
Divorce - Hindu Marriage Act - Section 13-B, Section 14
Fact of the Case:

The parties filed a petition under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking dissolution of their marriage before the expiry of one year from the date of marriage. The Family Court dismissed the petition as premature, citing Section 14 of the Act.
Finding of the Court:

The Court found that the parties were unable to reconcile their differences and still wished for dissolution of their marriage by mutual consent. It set aside the lower court's order and revived the petition under Section 13-B of the Act.
Issues: The main issue was whether the benefit of the proviso to Section 14(1) of the Act could be availed of to present a petition under Section 13-B for divorce by mutual consent, despite the requirement for the parties to live separately for a period of one year or more.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the parties' inability to reconcile their differences amounted to exceptional hardship, justifying the entertainment of their petition under Section 13-B of the Act before the expiry of the statutory period of one year.
Final Decision: The impugned order was set aside, and the petition under Section 13-B of the Act was revived. The parties were directed to appear before the Family Court for recording of their statements at first motion.

LISA GILL, J.

1. Prayer in this appeal is for setting aside order dated 06.09.2022, passed by the learned Family Court, Faridkot, whereby petition under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’) filed by the parties before us, seeking dissolution of the marriage, has been dismissed being premature. It is observed by the learned Family Court, Faridkot, that marriage of the parties was solemnized on 22.04.2022, but petition under Section 13-B of the Act, was filed on 31.08.2022. No ground to accept the petition prior to lapse of one year from the date of marriage was found in terms of Section 14 of the Act.

2. Brief facts of the matter are that marriage of the parties was admittedly solemnized on 22.04.2022. It is averred that certain differences cropped up between them. Despite strenuous efforts on their part as well as intervention of respectable and family members, their differences could not be resolved and it became impossible for them to live together. It is further averred that the parties were living separately since 02.05.2022 and it was now impossible for them to live together as husband and wife. They sought dissolution of their marriage by filing petition under Section 13-B of the Act. Application under Section 14 of the Act was also filed.

3. Learned Family Court, Faridkot, found no merit in the application under Section 14 of the Act and petition was accordingly dismissed being premature without prejudice to any petition which may be filed by the parties after expiry of the statutory period of one year.

4. Aggrieved therefrom, present appeal has been filed.

5. Learned counsel for both the husband and wife submit that the impugned order dated 06.09.2022, has been incorrectly passed causing manifest injustice to the parties who seek to carry on with their lives. It is reiterated that there is no possibility whatsoever for reconciliation between the parties and consequent resumption of matrimonial ties. It is thus prayed by both learned counsel for the parties that this appeal be allowed.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the file with their able assistance.

7. It is a matter of record that the parties presented a petition under Section 13-B of the Act, seeking dissolution of their marriage prior to expiry of one year from their marriage, which was admittedly solemnized on 22.04.2022.

8. At this stage, it is relevant to refer to Section 13-B and Section 14 of the Act, which read as under:-

Section-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 solemnized 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 meantime, the court shall, on being satisfied, after hearing the parties and after making such inquiry as it thinks fit, that a marriage has been solemnized and that the averments in the petition are true, pass a decree of divorce declaring the marriage to be dissolved with effect from the date of the decree.

Section 14: No petition for divorce to be presented within one year of marriage.

(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, it shall not be competent for any court to entertain any petition for dissolution of a marriage by a decree of divorce, unless at the date of the presentation of the petition one year has elapsed since the date of the marriage:

Provided that the court may, upon a

Click Here to Read the rest of this document