LawforAll

advocatemmmohan

My photo
since 1985 practicing as advocate in both civil & criminal laws

WELCOME TO LEGAL WORLD

WELCOME TO MY LEGAL WORLD - SHARE THE KNOWLEDGE

Wednesday, August 22, 2012

“13-B.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, 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.. It is quite clear from the materials on record that although the marriage between the parties was solemnized on 26.3.2011, within 3 months of the marriage the petitioner filed a petition under Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, for a decree of nullity of the marriage. Thereafter, they have not been able to live together and lived separately for more than 1 year. In effect, there appears to be no marital ties between the parties at all. It is only the provisions of Section 13-B(2) of the aforesaid Act which is keeping the formal ties of marriage between the parties subsisting in name only. At least the condition indicated in Section 13-B for grant of a decree of dissolution of marriage by the mutual consent is present in the instant case. It is only on account of the statutory cooling period of six months that the parties have to wait for a decree of dissolution of marriage to be passed. 13. In the above circumstances, in our view, this is one of those cases where we may invoke and exercise the powers vested in the Supreme Court under Article 142 of the Constitution. The marriage is subsisting by a tenuous thread on account of the statutory cooling off period, out of which four months have already expired. When it has not been possible for the parties to live together and to discharge their marital obligations towards each other for more than one year, we see no reason to continue the agony of the parties for another two months. 14. We, accordingly, allow the appeal and also convert the pending proceedings under Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, before the Additional District Judge-01, West Delhi, into one under Section 13-B of the aforesaid Act and by invoking our powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, we grant a decree of mutual divorce to the parties and direct that the marriage between the parties shall stand dissolved by mutual consent. The proceedings before the Additional District Judge-01, West Delhi, being HMA No.204 of 2012, is withdrawn to this Court on consent of the parties and disposed of by this order. We, accordingly, allow the appeal and also convert the pending proceedings under Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, before the Additional District Judge-01, West Delhi, into one under Section 13-B of the aforesaid Act and by invoking our powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, we grant a decree of mutual divorce to the parties and direct that the marriage between the parties shall stand dissolved by mutual consent. The proceedings before the Additional District Judge-01, West Delhi, being HMA No.204 of 2012, is withdrawn to this Court on consent of the parties and disposed of by this order.


|REPORTABLE        |

                        IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
                        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                      CIVIL APPEAL NO.5946      OF 2012
                   (Arising out of SLP(C)No.21084 of 2012)



1 Devinder Singh Narula                    … Appellant



           Vs.





           2 Meenakshi Nangia                         … Respondent





                               J U D G M E N T



ALTAMAS KABIR, J.


   1. Leave granted.


   2. This appeal arises out of an order passed by the  Additional  District
      Judge-01,  West  Delhi,  on  13.4.2012  in  HMA   No.204/2012,   while
      entertaining a joint petition filed by the parties under Section  13-B
      of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.  On such  petition  being  presented,
      the learned Court below  posted  the  matter  on  15.10.2012  for  the
      purpose of second motion, as contemplated under Section  13-B  of  the
      aforesaid Act, which is extracted hereinbelow for reference:-
        “13-B.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, 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.


   3. The Section itself provides for a cooling period of six months on  the
      first motion being moved, in the event the parties changed their minds
      during the said period. Accordingly, after the initial motion and  the
      presentation of the petition  for  mutual  divorce,  the  parties  are
      required to wait for a period of six months before the  second  motion
      can be moved, and at that point of time, if the parties have  made  up
      their minds that they would be unable to  live  together,  the  Court,
      after making such inquiry as it may consider fit, grant  a  decree  of
      divorce declaring the marriage to be dissolved with  effect  from  the
      date of the decree.

   4. Aggrieved by the said order of the learned Additional District  Judge,
      fixing the date of the 2nd motion after six months, the petitioner has
      moved this Court by way of this appeal, relying on a decision of  this
      Court in Anil Kumar Jain vs. Maya Jain [(2009) 10  SCC  415],  whereby
      after arriving at a conclusion that the marriage between  the  parties
      had broken down irretrievably, this Court felt justified to invoke its
      powers under Article 142 of the Constitution.

   5. On behalf of both the parties it was urged that  since  more  than  18
      months had elapsed since the original petition under Section 13 of the
      Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, have been filed, the said  period  could  be
      counted towards the cooling period  of  six  months  stipulated  under
      Section 13-B of the above Act.  It was urged that  by  such  reckoning
      the parties have already completed the waiting period of  six  months,
      as envisaged under Section 13-B of the Act.

   6. It was also urged that the other conditions contained in  Section  13-
      B(1) of the Act had also been satisfied as the parties had been living
      separately for more than a year  and  had  mutually  agreed  that  the
      marriage should be dissolved.   It  was  urged  that  except  for  the
      formality of not having made an application under  Section  13-B,  the
      other criteria had been  duly  fulfilled  and  having  regard  to  the
      language of Section 13-B, a decree of dissolution of the  marriage  by
      way of mutual divorce should not be denied to the parties, since  four
      months out of waiting period of six months contemplated under  Section
      13-B had already been completed.

   7. It was contended that as was done in  the  case  of  Anil  Kumar  Jain
      (supra), this Court could invoke its powers under Article 142  of  the
      Constitution in the best interest of the parties. It  was  urged  that
      technicality should be tampered by pragmatism, if substantive  justice
      was to be done to the parties.

   8. On behalf of the State it was submitted that in view of the  statutory
      provisions, the prayer being made on behalf of the petitioner and  the
      respondent wife should not  be  entertained  as  that  would  lead  to
      confusion in the minds of the public and would be against  the  public
      interest.
   9. We have carefully considered the submissions made  on  behalf  of  the
      parties and have also considered our decision  in  Anil  Kumar  Jain’s
      case (supra).  It is no doubt true that the  Legislature  had  in  its
      wisdom stipulated a cooling period of six  months  from  the  date  of
      filing of a petition for mutual divorce till such divorce is  actually
      granted, with the intention that it  would  save  the  institution  of
      marriage. It is also true that the intention of the Legislature cannot
      be faulted with, but there may  be  occasions  when  in  order  to  do
      complete justice to the parties it becomes necessary for this Court to
      invoke its powers under Article 142 in an irreconcilable situation. In
      fact, in the case of Kiran vs. Sharad Dutt [(2000) 10 SCC 243],  which
      was considered in Anil Kumar Jain’s case, after living separately  for
      many years and 11 years after initiating proceedings under Section  13
      of the Hindu Marriage Act,  the  parties  filed  a  joint  application
      before this Court for leave to  amend  the  divorce  petition  and  to
      convert the same into a proceeding under  Section  13-B  of  the  Act.
      Treating the petition as one under Section 13-B of the aforesaid  Act,
      this  Court  by  invoking  its  powers  under  Article  142   of   the
      Constitution, granted a decree of mutual divorce at the stage  of  the
      SLP itself.  In different cases in different  situations,  this  Court
      had invoked its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution in  order
      to do complete justice between the parties.

  10. Though we are not inclined to accept the  proposition  that  in  every
      case of dissolution of marriage under Section  13-B  of  the  Act  the
      Court  has  to  exercise  its  powers  under  Article   142   of   the
      Constitution,  we  are  of  the  opinion  that  in  appropriate  cases
      invocation of such power would not be unjustified and may  even  prove
      to be necessary.  The question with which we are faced is whether this
      is one of such cases?

  11. As will appear in the averments made in  this  appeal,  the  appellant
      filed a petition under  Section  12  of  the  Hindu  Marriage  Act  on
      1.6.2011 on the ground that the marriage contracted on 26.3.2011,  was
      a nullity; that the parties had been  living  separately  since  their
      marriage and have not cohabitated with each other since  1.6.2011  and
      in future  also  they  could  never  live  together  under  one  roof.
      According to the parties, they are residing separately from each other
      for the last  one  year  and  the  respondent  was  presently  working
      overseas in Canada.  It is with such object in mind  that  during  the
      pendency  of the proceedings under Section 12 of the Act  the  parties
      agreed to mediation  and   during  mediation  the  parties  agreed  to
      dissolve their marriage by filing a petition under Section 13-B of the
      above Act for grant of divorce by  mutual consent.  In the proceedings
      before the Mediator, the parties agreed to move appropriate  petitions
      under Section 13-B(1) and 13-B(2) of the Act.  A report was  submitted
      by the Mediator of the Mediation Centre of the Tis  Hazari  Courts  to
      the Court in the pending HMA No.239 of 2011.   It is pursuant to  such
      agreement during the mediation proceedings  that  an  application  was
      filed by the parties  in  the  aforesaid  pending  HMA  on  15.12.2011
      indicating that they had settled  the  matter  through  the  mediation
      centre and that they would be filing a petition for divorce by  mutual
      consent on or before 15.4.2012.  On the strength of the said petition,
      the HMA proceedings were disposed of as  withdrawn.  Subsequently,  on
      13.4.2012 the parties filed a joint petition under Section 13-B of the
      Act on which the order came to be passed  by  the  learned  Additional
      District Judge -01, West Delhi, fixing the date for the second  motion
      on 15.10.2012.

  12. It is quite clear from the  materials  on  record  that  although  the
      marriage between the parties was solemnized  on  26.3.2011,  within  3
      months of the marriage the petitioner filed a petition  under  Section
      12 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, for a decree  of  nullity  of  the
      marriage.  Thereafter, they have not been able to  live  together  and
      lived separately for more than 1 year.  In effect, there appears to be
      no marital ties between the parties at all.  It is only the provisions
      of Section 13-B(2) of the aforesaid Act which is  keeping  the  formal
      ties of marriage between the parties   subsisting  in  name  only.  At
      least the condition indicated in Section 13-B for grant of a decree of
      dissolution of marriage by  the  mutual  consent  is  present  in  the
      instant case.  It is only on account of the statutory  cooling  period
      of six  months  that  the  parties  have  to  wait  for  a  decree  of
      dissolution of marriage to be passed.

  13. In the above circumstances, in our view, this is one  of  those  cases
      where we may invoke and exercise the  powers  vested  in  the  Supreme
      Court  under  Article  142  of  the  Constitution.   The  marriage  is
      subsisting by a tenuous thread on account of the statutory cooling off
      period, out of which four months have already expired.   When  it  has
      not been possible for the parties to live together  and  to  discharge
      their marital obligations towards each other for more than  one  year,
      we see no reason to continue the agony of the parties for another  two
      months.

  14. We, accordingly,  allow  the  appeal  and  also  convert  the  pending
      proceedings under Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act,  1955,  before
      the Additional District Judge-01, West Delhi, into one  under  Section
      13-B of the aforesaid Act and by invoking our powers under Article 142
      of the Constitution, we grant  a  decree  of  mutual  divorce  to  the
      parties and direct that the marriage between the parties  shall  stand
      dissolved by mutual consent. The  proceedings  before  the  Additional
      District Judge-01, West Delhi, being HMA No.204 of 2012, is  withdrawn
      to this Court on consent of the parties and disposed of by this order.

  15. In the facts of the case, the parties shall bear their own costs.



                                                     ………………………………………………………J.
                                     (ALTAMAS KABIR)





                                                     ………………………………………………………J.
                                     (J. CHELAMESWAR)
New Delhi
Dated:22.8.2012.

-----------------------
10