Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 59 (MP)

Indrajeet Singh v. Sabita Singh

2020-01-09

NANDITA DUBEY

body2020
1. Petitioner/husband Indrajeet Singh and respondent/wife Sabita Singh are present in person alongwith their respective counsel, Shri Manish Tiwari and Shri Jitendra Yadav. 2. With the consent of the counsel and parties, the petition is taken up today for final hearing. 3. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, takes exception to the order dated 16.12.2019, passed in case No. RCS HM/1202/2019 by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Jabalpur, whereby the request of the parties for waiving the statutory period of six months for filing the second motion for divorce under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act has been declined and the petition was directed to be listed on 24.06.2020. 4. The respondent supports the petitioner in the present petition. 5. The Facts giving rise to the present petition in brief are that the petitioner was married to the respondent on 18.02.2018. From the very first day, they could not reside together due to differences of opinion and way of living between the parties. They started living separately from 04.05.2018. The family members and society members intervened to solve their differences, but as the differences could not be resolved, the parties decided to get the marriage dissolved by decree of divorce by mutual consent as per the conditions agreed upon between them. The petitioner/husband agreed to pay Rs.6 lacs as one time permanent alimony, to be paid in two installments through Demand Draft in the name of the respondent/wife. First installment at the time of filing of mutual divorce case and the second installment before the second hearing of the case. 6. The petitioner and the respondent thereafter jointly filed an application dated 22.11.2019 under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act for divorce on the ground of mutual consent. Vide order dated 22.11.2019, the learned Family Court undertook the first motion of the case, wherein after mediation and recording of statement, the matter was fixed for 24.06.2020. On 13.12.2019, the petitioner and respondent jointly submitted a waiver application for preponement of the date, 24.06.2020 to some close date as the agreed conditions between the parties have been fulfilled. 7. The learned Judge vide the impugned order, however declined to waive the period, relying on para 17 of the Supreme Court judgment in the case of Anil Kumar Jain Vs. Maya Jain, Civil Appeal No.5952/2000. 8. 7. The learned Judge vide the impugned order, however declined to waive the period, relying on para 17 of the Supreme Court judgment in the case of Anil Kumar Jain Vs. Maya Jain, Civil Appeal No.5952/2000. 8. It is submitted by learned counsel for the parties that time specified under sub-section (2) of Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act is merely a formality and a decree of divorce by mutual consent could be granted without waiting for the period of six months under sub-Section (2) of Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, if the Court is satisfied that the parties have been living separately for a period of one year and have mutually agreed that the marriage to be dissolved as envisaged under sub-section (1) of Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act. 9. Reliance is placed on (2017) 8 SCC 746 Amardeep Singh Vs. Harveen Kaur, wherein the Supreme Court has held :- “18. Applying the above to the present situation, we are of the view that where the Court dealing with a matter is satisfied that a case is made out to waive the statutory period under Section 13B(2), it can do so after considering the following : (i) the statutory period of six months specified in Section 13B(2), in addition to the statutory period of one year under Section 13B(1) of separation of parties is already over before the first motion itself; (ii) all efforts for mediation/conciliation including efforts in terms of Order XXXIIA Rule 3 CPC/Section 23(2) of the Act/Section 9 of the Family Courts Act to reunite the parties have failed and there is no likelihood of success in that direction by any further efforts; (iii) the parties have genuinely settled their differences including alimony, custody of child or any other pending issues between the parties; (iv) the waiting period will only prolong their agony.” 10. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also verified from the petitioner/husband as well as respondent/wife in the presence of their respective counsel in the open Court, if there is any possibility of reconciliation. The parties before me have stated that the memorandum of compromise has been filed after great deliberation and consideration of the pros and cons involved in the matter and after all efforts for mediation and reconciliation to reunite have failed. The parties before me have stated that the memorandum of compromise has been filed after great deliberation and consideration of the pros and cons involved in the matter and after all efforts for mediation and reconciliation to reunite have failed. The terms and conditions for dissolution of marriage has been agreed upon between the parties and the amount of Rs.6 lacs as permanent alimony has already been paid to the respondent/wife and they have no further subsisting claims over each other. 11. Karnataka High Court in Smt. Roopa Reddy Vs. Prabhakar Reddy reported in AIR 1994 Karnataka 12, wherein it has held that the period of six months provided under Section 13-B(2) is directory in nature and has laid down the following position of law :- "13. The next question is whether the requirement under S. 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act has to be considered as mandatory or directory. The words used in the Section shall have to be read in the context in which the liberlised provision has been made by the legislature enabling the unwilling parties to seek divorce instantaneously and thus to put an end to the untold misery. When the intention of the Legislature in introducing S. 13B(2) is to liberalise and to unlock the wedlock the legislature has never intended the period of 6 months mentioned in the Act shall be strictly complied with. But, in spirit the Section is directory in nature and it has been incorporated to help 2 discordant spouse to get quick separation and to lead their remaining life without any agony. If S. 13B(2) is read as mandatory, the very purpose of liberalising the policy of decree of divorce by mutual consent will be frustrated. Thus, S. 13B(2), though it is mandatory in form is director in substance. …............................................. 18. Marriage is an union of 2 hearts. Success of married life depends on the edifice built with the mutual trust, understanding, love, affection, service and self sacrifice. Once this edifice is shaken, happy married life will be shattered into pieces. The result is one of misery and emotion. Whether one accepts it or not liberalisation in the way of living of individuals and reformation in age old customs and due to modernisation and understanding of individual rights and equal status irrespective of sex it is natural for either of the spouse to seek for dissolution. The result is one of misery and emotion. Whether one accepts it or not liberalisation in the way of living of individuals and reformation in age old customs and due to modernisation and understanding of individual rights and equal status irrespective of sex it is natural for either of the spouse to seek for dissolution. Where the marriage tie has been broken, the Court has to look to the interest of the parties and the welfare of the children as paramount. When it is impossible to live tike husband and wife, any compulsion to unite them will lead to social evils and disturbance of mental peace and disorder in the family life. However rigid social fabric it is not the social system but the persona] safety of the parties to the wedlock, shall prevail. This should be the guiding principle in view of S. 13B(1) of the Act. There is complete destruction of the essence of marriage between parties and it has reached the stage of irretrievable breakdown. 12. I am in respectful agreement with the view taken by the Supreme Court in the case of Amardeep Singh (supra) and the Karnataka High Court in the case of Smt. Roopa Reddy (Supra). 13. In the backdrop of the circumstances narrated in the case, the request made by the parties present in the Court is found to be just and proper. 14. The petition is allowed. The order dated 16.12.2019 is set aside. In view of the exceptional circumstances made out by the parties in the present petition under Section 13-B(1) of the Act, which was filed on 22.11.2019 and the marriage solemnized between the parties i.e., Indrajeet Singh Vs. Sabita Singh, on 18.02.2018 is dissolved by a decree under Section 13-B(1) of the Act with effect from today, i.e., 09.01.2020. 15. The petition stands allowed and disposed of accordingly.