Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 2010 (2) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2010 (2) TMI 1275 - SC - Indian LawsPetition for divorce by mutual consent - Petition filed under Article 136 - Whether petitioner right to approach this Court against the order of the Family Court? - waiver of statutory period of six months in filing the second petition - waiver was permissible - HELD THAT:- Parties got married and as they could not bear each other, started living separately. There had been claims and counter claims, allegations and criminal prosecution between them. Petitioner approached the Competent Court at Gurgaon for dissolution of marriage. Admittedly, that case is still pending consideration. Parties filed the petition for divorce by mutual consent only in November 2009 before the Family Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not explain as to how the case for divorce could be filed before the Family Court, during the pendency of the case for divorce before the Gurgaon Court. Such a procedure adopted by the petitioner amounts to abuse of process of the court. Petitioner has approached the different forums for the same relief merely because he is very much eager and keen to get the marriage dissolved immediately even by abusing the process of the Court. In Jai Singh v. Union of India [1976 (11) TMI 195 - SUPREME COURT], this Court while dealing with a similar issue held that a litigant cannot pursue two parallel remedies in respect of the same matter at the same time. This judgment has subsequently been approved by this Court in principle but distinguished on facts in Awadh Bihari Yadav v. State of Bihar [1995 (8) TMI 320 - SUPREME COURT] and Arunima Baruah v. Union of India [2007 (4) TMI 695 - SUPREME COURT]. Even otherwise, the statutory period of six months for filing the second petition u/s 13-B(2) of the Act has been prescribed for providing an opportunity to parties to reconcile and withdraw petition for dissolution of marriage. Learned counsel for the petitioner is not able to advance arguments on the issue as to whether, statutory period prescribed u/s 13-B(1) of the Act is mandatory or directory and if directory, whether could be dispensed with even by the High Court in exercise of its writ/appellate jurisdiction. Thus, this is not a case where there has been any obstruction to the stream of justice or there has been injustice to the parties, which is required to be eradicated, and this Court may grant equitable relief. Petition does not raise any question of general public importance. None of contingencies, which may require this Court to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution, has been brought to our notice in the case at hand. Thus, in view of the above, we do not find any justification to entertain this petition. It is accordingly dismissed.
|