Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 4142 (ALL)

Anuradha Sahu v. Anoop Kumar Sahu

2016-12-21

DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA, MAHENDRA DAYAL

body2016
JUDGMENT : Heard Sri Sanjay Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Sanjay Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. This appeal has been filed challenging the order dated 24.10.2016, passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Lucknow whereby the application preferred by the petitioner seeking leave of the court to present the petition under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking divorce by mutual consent before one year since the date of marriage, has been rejected. 3. It has been stated by learned counsel for the appellant that the impugned order is completely non-speaking order and further that the learned court below has not considered the contents of the application which was moved seeking leave of the court for presenting the petition before expiry of period of one year since the date of marriage. His submission, thus, is that the facts and circumstances disclosed in the application seeking leave of the court clearly establish that it was a case where leave ought to have been granted by learned court below in terms of the provisions contained in the proviso appended to Section 14 (1) of the Hindu Marriage Act. 4. Learned counsel representing the respondent has supported the submissions made by learned counsel for appellant. 5. From a perusal of the impugned order dated 24.10.2016, it is not difficult to find that the impugned order is absolutely non-speaking and cryptic and it has not discussed the contentions made in the application preferred seeking leave of the court to present the petition for divorce under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 before expiry of a period of one year since the date of marriage. Learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Lucknow has completely failed to apply his mind to the averments made in the said application and has only concluded without any discussion that the application does not disclose any exceptional hardship which may entitle the party to seek leave of the court for presenting the petition before expiry of a period of one year since the date of marriage. The reasons for arriving at such a conclusion have not been disclosed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Lucknow in the impugned order. 6. It is needless to say that any decision taken in exercise of judicial discretion has to contain the reasons. The reasons for arriving at such a conclusion have not been disclosed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Lucknow in the impugned order. 6. It is needless to say that any decision taken in exercise of judicial discretion has to contain the reasons. Of late, it has been recognized by this Court as well as by Hon'ble Supreme Court that reasons are to be disclosed even in the matters where administrative discretion is to be exercised, what to say of the matters which are to be judicially viewed and considered. Supplying reasons is one of the facets of the principles of natural justice apart from two well recognized principles, namely (1) that no one should be condemned unheard and (2) that no one can be judged of his own cause. That the principles of natural justices are to be followed in every judicial proceedings is a legal principle which need no elaboration here. Any judicial order has to be necessarily couched with reasons for arriving at a conclusion. 7. Application seeking leave of the court for presenting the petition before expiry the term of a period of one year since the date of marriage discloses various reasons in paras 3, 4 and 5 which may constitute a ground as enumerated in the proviso appended to Section 14(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act permitting the leave to apply to the court seeking divorce. However, learned court below has not discussed as to how and why the reasons mentioned in the said application, especially in paras 3, 4 and 5 do not constitute a ground as enumerated under proviso appended to Section 14 (1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. 8. For the reasons disclosed above, we are of the view that the order impugned herein is not sustainable. 9. Accordingly, the First Appeal is allowed and the order dated 24.10.2016 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Lucknow on application A-3 preferred by the appellant is set-aside. 10. The Principal Judge, Family Court, Lucknow is directed to consider the said application afresh in accordance with the provisions contained in Section 14 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 as also taking into account the observations made herein. 10. The Principal Judge, Family Court, Lucknow is directed to consider the said application afresh in accordance with the provisions contained in Section 14 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 as also taking into account the observations made herein. The said consideration by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Lucknow on the Application A-3 shall be made and final decision thereon shall be taken within a period of two weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.