LexASHOK HURRA versus RUPA BIPIN ZAVERI
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
ASHOKHURRA A v. RUPA BIPIN ZAVERi MARCH 10, 1997. [M.M. PUNCHHI AND K.S. PARIPOORNAN, JJ.] B Hind,u law: Hindu Marriage Act, 1955: Section 13-B. Divorc~By mutual consent-Petition for-Jointly filed by husband C and wife under S.13-B (1)-Husband alone filed application for decree of divorce under S.13-B (2) slt months after presentation of divorce peti- tion-Wife filed application for withdrawal of consentf or divorce after expiry of 18 months from date of prese1itation of divorce petition-Husband remar- ried during pendency of divorce petitio1t-Trial Court refused but Single Judge D granted divorce on ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriag~Division Bench reversed it-Held : Marriage broken down irretrievably due to various factors though each one of such factors by itself did not afford ground for divorce by mutual consent-There being no chance of reviving and continua- tion of marital relationship and there being a long lapse of time since filing E of the divorce petition, grant of decree of divorce in exercise of Supreme Court's jurisdiction under Art. 142 warranted-Husband, a Doctor and well- to-do person, directed to pay Rs. 10 lakhs as maintenance and Rs. 50, 000/- as cost of his wif~onstitution of India, 1950, Arts 136 and 142. Section 13-B-Divorc~By mutual consent-Withdrawal of-By one of F the spouses-After expiry of 18 months from date of presentation of joint divorce petition-Grant of decree of divorc~ontinuation of mutual consent till passing of decree of divorce, even· though divorce petition not withdrawn within the period of 18 months-Held : Questions left open-Decision by Supreme Court in Sures ht a Devi's case requires .reconsideration in appropriate G case. The respondent-wife left the matrimonial home and started residing separately. Thereafter, a joint petition for divorce was filed by the husband and wife under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 stating that all the matters regarding ornaments, clothes and other movables were H 875 876 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997] 2 's.C.R; A settled between them and the wife had renounced her right to claim maintenance. The parties simply sought a decree of dissolution of the marriage by mutual consent. Subsequently, the husband alone moved an application praying for passing a decree of divorce. On this motion, the court issued notice to the wife. Hearing of the petition commenced but the B case was adjourned from time to time mostly on the requests made jointly by advocates appearing for the parties mentioning that talks of com· promise/settlement were going on. Meanwhile, the appellant-husband remarried and a child was born out of the said wedlock. Thereafter, the wife filed an application withdrawing her consent for divorce praying that the petition for divorce by mutual consent be consent for divorce praying C that the petition for divorce by mutual consent be dismissed. This submis- sion was objected to by the appellant, denying the averments made in the application and also stating further that the wife had no right to withdraw or revoke the consent after the period of 18 months. The appellant-hus- band also prayed that consistent with the prayer made in the joint Hindu D Marriage Petition a decree for divorce by mutual consent by passed. The wife filed an objection thereto. The trial court held that since consent was withdrawn before the decree could be passed, it had to be accepted and, in this view, dismissed the petition for divorce by mutual consent. In the appeal filed by the E husband, a Single Judge of the High Court, after reviewing the entire facts of the case and in view of the fact that the marriage between the husband and wife had irretrievably broken down and reunion was not at all possible set aside the order passed by the trial court and passed the decree of dissolution of marriage from the date of the petition. In the Letters Patent F G Appeal filed by the respondent-wife, a Division Bench of the High Court set aside the other of the Single Judge. Hence this appeal. Disposing of the appeal, this Court HELD : 1.1. The appellate court has not disputed the following: (a) the marriage between the parties is dead and has irretrievably broken down; (b) there are,allegations and counter· allegations between the parties H and also litigation in various courts and no love is lost between them; -- ASH OK HURRA v. R.B. ZAVERI 877 (c) there is delay in the disposal of th
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.