Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 2603 (RAJ)

Sukhvindra Singh v. Akshdeep Kaur

2022-10-14

VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

body2022
JUDGMENT 1. The present writ petition has been filed seeking a direction to the effect that the learned trial Court may be directed to decide the application dated 21/09/2022 preferred by the parties jointly for waiving the statutory period of six months as specified under Section 13-B(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1955'). 2. Learned counsel for the parties have submitted that in the identical set of facts in number of writ petitions, this Court while disposing of the writ petitions directed the Family Court/trial Court to waive the statutory period of six months as specified under Section 13-B(2) of the Act of 1955 in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in Dr. Bhawna v. Shri Mrityunjaya reported in 2017(2) WLC (Raj.) UC 732. 3. One of the order dated 18/12/2018 passed by this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.18985/2018 (Suresh Vaishnav v. Smt. Nirmala Vaishnav) reads as under :- "This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 04.12.2018, passed by the Family Court, No.1, Jodhpur, whereby the joint application filed by the petitioner and respondent for waiving of statutory period of six months as prescribed under Section 13-B(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 has been dismissed. Mr. D.K. Singh, learned counsel puts in appearance on behalf of respondents and has submitted that the respondent No.1 is also agrieved with the impugned order and the application was filed with the consent of the respondent No.1. Learned counsel for the respondent has further submitted that he has no objection if the relief prayed for in this writ petition is granted. Counsel for the parties relied upon the judgment passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in the matter of Dr. Bhawna v. Shri Mrityunjaya reported in 2017(2) WLC (Raj.) UC 732, wherein the Coordinate Bench held as under:- "6. Counsel for the parties relied upon the judgment passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in the matter of Dr. Bhawna v. Shri Mrityunjaya reported in 2017(2) WLC (Raj.) UC 732, wherein the Coordinate Bench held as under:- "6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Amardeep Singh's case (supra) has held as under:- "19 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 13-B(2), it can do so after considering the following; (i) The statutory period of six months specified in Section 13-B(2), in addition to the statutory period of one year under Section 13-B(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 32-A 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. The waiver application can be filed one week after the first motion giving reasons for the prayer for waiver. If the above conditions are satisfied, the waiver of the waiting period for the second motion will be in the discretion of the court concerned. 20. Since we are of the view that the period mentioned in Section 13-B(2) is not mandatory but directory, it will be open to the Court to exercise its discretion in the facts and circumstances of each case where there is no possibility of parties resuming cohabitation and there are chances of alternative rehabilitation." After taking into consideration the facts of the present case, I am of the opinion that the conditions set out by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in above referred case are fulfilled. 7. 7. Taking into consideration the overall facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the fact that the petitioner and the respondent are highly educated persons and have mutually decided to end their marriage as there are no chances of reconciliation between them, I am of the opinion that the court below has wrongly rejected the application filed by the parties for waiving of the statutory period of six months as specified under Section 13-B(2) of the Act of 1955. 8. Hence, this writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 09.10.2017 passed by the court below is set aside. The court below is directed to waive the statutory period of six months as specified under Section 13-B(2) of the Act of 1955 and decide the application filed by the parties under Section 13-B of the Act of 1955 expeditiously." In that view of the matter with the consent of the parties, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 04.12.2018 passed by the Family Court No.1, Jodhpur is set aside. The court below is directed to waive the statutory period of six months as specified under Section 13-B(2) of the Act of 1955 and decide the application filed by the parties under Section 13-B of the Act of 1955 expeditiously. The parties are directed to appear before court below on 21.12.2018". 4. In view of the above, the present writ petition is also disposed of with a direction to the learned trial Court to decide the pending application of the parties under Section 13-B(2) of the Act of 1955 and waive the statutory period of six months as specified under Section 13-B of the Act of 1955 within a period of one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order and pass the appropriate orders thereafter issuing decree of divorce. 5. The stay application and other pending application, if any also stand disposed of.