IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
NAVIN CHAWLA, ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI, RENDU BHATNAGAR, JJ
SHIKSHA KUMARI – Appellant
Versus
SANTOSH KUMAR – Respondent
JUDGMENT
ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI, J.
Is a court mandated to stall divorce by mutual consent, thrusting unwilling parties – not into marital bliss, but into a matrimonial abyss?
The present reference arises from judgment dated 22.04.2025 rendered by a Division Bench of this court in MAT.APP. (F.C.) No. 111/2025, concerning the timeline prescribed for the presentation of a petition for divorce by mutual consent under section 13B(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (" HMA "). Having regard to the view taken by an earlier Division Bench of this court in Sankalp Singh vs. Prarthana Chandra , 2013 SCC OnLine Del 855 the Division Bench in the present matter has observed that the interpretation adopted in Sankalp Singh may warrant reconsideration.
2. In light of the divergent opinion that the Division Bench was inclined to express in its judgment dated 22.04.2025, it has formulated specific questions of law and requested Hon‘ble the Chief Justice to place the matter before a Full Bench of this court for authoritative determination. The legal questions referred to the Full Bench read as follows:
"(a) Whether a petition under Section 13B (1) of the Hindu Marriage Act can be filed by the parties bef
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.