IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
SURYA PRAKASH KESARWANI, CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, JJ.
Smt. Shyamshri – Appellant
Versus
Sumant Kumar – Respondent
First Appeal No. 723 of 2022
Decided On : 30-09-2022
Family Courts Act - Divorce - Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Section 13-B - 17, 20, 27 - The court discussed the provisions of Section 13 B(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and the interpretation provided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Amardeep Singh vs. Harveen Kaur and Amit Kumar vs. Suman Beniwal. The court held that the period mentioned in Section 13 B(2) is not mandatory but directory, and it is open to the Court to exercise its discretion in the facts and circumstances of each case. The factors for exercising the discretion were also enumerated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff and the defendant were married but started living separately due to disputes. They filed a joint divorce petition under Section 13 B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The parties moved an application to relax the period of second motion of six months, which was rejected by the court.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the period mentioned in Section 13 B(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 is not mandatory but directory, and it is open to the Court to exercise its discretion in the facts and circumstances of each case. The impugned judgment and order dated 01.08.2022 were set aside, and the matter was remitted back to the Principal Judge, Family Court, Ghaziabad, to pass an order afresh in accordance with law within one month from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order.
Issues: The main issue was whether the court should allow the application for relaxing the period of second motion of six months under Section 13 B(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the period mentioned in Section 13 B(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 is not mandatory but directory, and it is open to the Court to exercise its discretion in the facts and circumstances of each case. The factors for exercising the discretion were also enumerated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
Final Decision: The impugned judgment and order dated 01.08.2022 were set aside, and the matter was remitted back to the Principal Judge, Family Court, Ghaziabad, to pass an order afresh in accordance with law within one month from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order.
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Sri Jamal Ahmad Khan, learned counsel for the defendant-appellant/wife and Sri Rajeev Upadhyay, learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent/husband.
2. This First Appeal under Section 19 of Family Courts Act, 1984 has been filed praying to set aside the judgment and order dated 01.08.2022 in Case No. 1542 of 2022 (Sumant Kumar vs. Smt. Shyamshri) under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Ghaziabad, whereby joint application 16 Ga 2 filed by the parties for relaxing the period of second motion of six months, has been rejected.
Facts
3. Briefly stated undisputed facts are that the plaintiff and the defendant were married with each other on 02.12.2014. Some disputes developed between them and they started living separately since 26.12.2017. It also appears that the plaintiff-husband filed a divorce petition No. 1248 of 2019 under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, in the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Ghaziabad, which according to both the parties; remained pending. It appears that in the mean time both the parties have agreed to dissolve their marriage with consent. Therefore, they filed a joint divorce petition No. 1542 of 2021 (Sumant Kumar vs. Smt. Shyamshri) under Section 13 B of the Act, 1955.
4. In paragraphs 6, 7, 8, 9 and 11 of the aforesaid joint divorce petition under Section 13 B, the parties has states as under:
¼7½ ;g fd oknhx.k 26-12-2017 ls vyx&vyx fuokl dj jgsa gS] blhfy, oknhx.k ds e/; ifr&iRuh ds :i esa fdlh Hkh Ádkj ds lEca/k LFkkfir ugha gq, gSA
¼8½ ;g fd gky gh oknhx.k ds e/; gq, vkilh le>kSrs ds vuqlkj dqy vadu jkf’k 8 yk[k ipkl gtkj :i;s esa rd gqvk gSA ftlesa 4 yk[k iPphl gtkj MhŒMhŒ la[;k 005315 tks fd oknh la[;k 1 }kjk oknh la[;k 2 dks ÁFke eks’ku ij vnk dj fn;k tk;sxk rFkk 'ks"k pkj yk[k iPphl gtkj :i;s f}rh; eks’ku ij vnk fd;s tk;saxsA
¼9½ ;g fd oknhx.k }kjk vkt fnukad rd ,d&nwljs ij fd;s x;s lHkh eqdneksa dks ÁFke eks’ku ds i’pkr~ nksuksa oknhx.k }kjk okil ys fy;k tk;sxkA
¼11½ ;g fd oknhx.k ds fopkjksa bruk vf/kd erHksn vk x;k gS fd vkt Hkh nksuksa ,d lkFk ifr&iRuh ds :i esa jgdj oSokfgd thou ;kiu djus ds fy;s lger ugha gS vkSj vkilh lgerh ls fookg&foPNsn gsrq mDr okn i= ekuuh; U;k;ky; esa nk;j fd;k gSA**
5. It appears that matter of the parties was referred to mediation on 01.07.2022 but as report of Mediation and Conciliation Center, District-Ghaziabad, dated 01.08.2022 the mediation has failed as both the parties are adamant for divorce.
6. On these facts the parties have moved the application 16 Ga 2 dated 01.08.2022 in the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court No. 1, Ghaziabad in divorce petition No. 1542 of 2022, under Section 13 B of the Act, 1965 for relaxing the period of second motion of six months which has been rejected by the impugned order dated 01.08.2022.
Submissions
7. Both the learned counsels for the parties jointly submit that since all efforts for mediation/reconciliation to reunite the parties have failed and there is no likelihood of success in that direction, therefore, the parties have genuinely settled their differences including alimony. Therefore, the breathing period of second motion as provided in Section 13 B(2) of the Act, 1955 will only prolong their agony. They, therefore, jointly submit that the court below has committed manifest error of law not to allow the application for relaxing the period.
Discussion and Findings
8. We have carefully considered the submissions of learned counsels for the parties and perused the record of the appeal before us.
9. The object of Section 13 B (2) of the Hindu Marria
The period mentioned in Section 13 B(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 is not mandatory but directory, and it is open to the Court to exercise its discretion in the facts and circumstances of each c....
The six-month waiting period under Section 13B(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act is directory, allowing courts discretion to waive it based on case-specific circumstances.
The statutory waiting period under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act can be waived if irretrievable breakdown of marriage is established.
The waiting period under Section 13B(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act is not mandatory but directory, and the court has the discretion to waive it based on the facts and circumstances of each case.
In cases of irretrievable breakdown of marriage and amicable consent to part ways, the parties should be allowed to waive the statutory waiting period for the second motion in a mutual consent divorc....
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.