2021 (12) TMI 1507 - SC - Indian Laws

Seeking waiver of requirement u/s 13B(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955 to make the motion for a decree of divorce after at least six months from the date of filing the petition for divorce by mutual consent Under Section 13B(1) of the said Act - HELD THAT - It is well settled that a judgment is a precedent for the issue of law that is raised and decided. A judgment is not to be read in the manner of a statute and construed with pedantic rigidity. In Amardeep Singh v. Harveen Kaur 2017 (9) TMI 2031 - SUPREME COURT this Court held that the statutory waiting period of at least six months mentioned in Section 13B(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act was not mandatory but directory and that it would be open to the Court to exercise its discretion to waive the requirement of Section 13B(2) having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case if there was no possibility of reconciliation between the spouses and the waiting period would serve no purpose except to prolong their agony. In SONI KUMARI VERSUS DEEPAK KUMAR 2015 (9) TMI 1763 - SUPREME COURT this Court exercised its power Under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to waive the statutory waiting period of six months where the wife had received the entire compensation of Rs. 15 lacs in full and final settlement of her claims as per the settlement arrived at between the parties and further granted a decree of divorce to the parties by mutual consent. In this Case the parties are both well-educated and highly placed government officers. They have been married for about 15 months. The marriage was a non-starter. Admittedly the parties lived together only for three days after which they have separated on account of irreconcilable differences. The parties have lived apart for the entire period of their marriage except three days. It is jointly stated by the parties that efforts at reconciliation have failed. The parties are unwilling to live together as husband and wife. Even after over 14 months of separation the parties still want to go ahead with the divorce. No useful purpose would be served by making the parties wait except to prolong their agony. The impugned order dated 17th November 2021 passed by the High Court and the impugned order dated 12th October 2021 passed by the Family Court Hissar are set aside - this Court deems it appropriate to exercise its power Under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to grant the Appellant and the Respondent a decree of divorce by mutual consent Under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955 waiving the statutory waiting period of six months Under Section 13(B)(2) of the said Act - appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Waiver of the six-month waiting period under Section 13B(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
2. Interpretation of the judgment in Amardeep Singh v. Harveen Kaur regarding the waiver conditions.
3. Application of Article 142 of the Constitution of India for granting divorce by mutual consent.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Waiver of the Six-Month Waiting Period:

The primary issue in this case was whether the six-month waiting period stipulated under Section 13B(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, could be waived. The Appellant and Respondent, both highly educated and holding significant positions, were married according to Hindu rites on 10th September 2020 and separated three days later. After over a year of separation, they filed for divorce by mutual consent under Section 13B. They sought a waiver of the six-month waiting period, arguing that their marriage had irretrievably broken down and there was no possibility of reconciliation. The Family Court dismissed their application, stating that their case did not meet the parameters for waiver as laid out in the Supreme Court's judgment in Amardeep Singh v. Harveen Kaur.

2. Interpretation of Amardeep Singh v. Harveen Kaur Judgment:

The High Court upheld the Family Court's decision, interpreting the Amardeep Singh judgment as requiring all specified conditions to be met for the waiver of the waiting period. These conditions include the statutory period of one year of separation being completed before the first motion, failed mediation efforts, genuine settlement of differences, and the waiting period prolonging the parties' agony. The High Court found that, although most conditions were met, the condition of a one-and-a-half-year separation before the first motion was not fulfilled. However, the Supreme Court clarified that the conditions mentioned in Amardeep Singh are illustrative, not mandatory, and that the statutory waiting period is directory, not mandatory. The Court emphasized that where there is no possibility of reconciliation, the waiting period should not prolong the parties' agony.

3. Application of Article 142 of the Constitution:

In exercising its power under Article 142 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court granted the Appellant and Respondent a decree of divorce by mutual consent, waiving the six-month waiting period. The Court noted that the marriage was a non-starter, with the parties living together for only three days and having irreconcilable differences. The Court found that no useful purpose would be served by enforcing the waiting period, as it would only prolong their agony. The Court's decision was guided by the principle of doing complete justice, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and the parties' mutual decision to part ways.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the orders of the High Court and Family Court, and granted a decree of divorce by mutual consent under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The judgment underscores the discretionary nature of the waiting period under Section 13B(2) and the Court's power to waive it when reconciliation is not possible.