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

1996 Supreme(MP) 518

D.M.DHARMADHIKARI
Manju Kohli – Appellant
Versus
Desh Deepak Kohli – Respondent


Advocates:
A.N. Yadav for applicant; H.C. Kohli for non-applicant.

ORDER

1. In matrimonial proceedings between the parties for seeking divorce by the wife under Sec. 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act which was filed on 14.7.1995, on 9.2.96 an application was filed under joint signatures of the spouses through their counsel for obtaining a divorce by mutual consent under Sec. 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The spouses sought a decree of divorce under section 13-B of the Act on the date of presentation of the petition. The matrimonial Court by order dated 12.2.1990, however, held that the decree sought of divorce on mutual consent cannot be passed before expiry of six months' period from the date of joint filing of the petition. The Court held that the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 13-B of the Act require the Court to direct the parties to wait for six months after filing of the petition based on mutual consent.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the wife raised two contentions. Firstly, it is contended that the period of six months can be reckoned by the Court from 14.7.1995 when the divorce petition was filed under section 13 of the Act and not from 9.2.96 when a joint petition under signatures of the spouses were filed for decree bas








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 telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top