LexDEVINDER SINGH NARULA versus MEENAKSHI NANGIA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2012] 7 S.C.R. 372 A DEVINDER SINGH NARULA B v. MEENAKSHI NANGIA (Civil Appeal No. 5946 of 2012) AUGUST 22, 2012 [ALTAMAS KABIR AND J. CHELAMESWAR, JJ.] CONSTITUTION OF /NOIA, 1950: c Art. 142 read with Art. 136 - Exercise of jurisdiction to dissolve the marriage before the cooling off period, on a petition for divorce by mutual consent u/s 13-8 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Held: It is no doubt true that the Legislature had in its wisdom stipulated a cooling off period of six months from the date of filing of a petition for mutual D divorce till such divorce is actually granted, with the intention that it would save the institution of marriage and the intention of the Legislature cannot be faulted with, but there may be occasions when in order to do complete justice to the parties it becomes necessary for Supreme Court to invoke its powers E under Art. 142 in an irreconcilable situation - It is quite clear from the materials on record that within 3 months of the marriage the petitioner filed a petition u/s 12 of the Act - Thereafter, they have not been able to live together - In effect, there appear to be no marital ties between the parties at all - F The condition indicated in s. 13-8 for grant of a decree of dissolution of marriage by the mutual consent is present in the instant case - The marriage is subsisting by a tenuous thread on account of the statutory cooling off period, out of which four months have already expired - In the G circumstances, this is one of those cases where the Court may invoke and exercise the powers vested in it under Art. 142 ·· Accordingly, the petition u/s 12 is converted to one u!s 13-8 and invoking the powers under Art. 142, a decree of H 372 DEVINDER SINGH NARULA v. MEENAKSHI NANGIA 373 divorce by mutual consent is granted - Hindu Marriage Act, A 1955 - s. 13-8 read with s. 12. The appellant-husband filed a petition u/s12 of the Hindu Marriage Act on 1.6.2011 on the ground that the marriage solemnized on 26.3.2011, was a nullity; that the 8 parties had been living separately since their marriage and in future also they could never live together under one roof. The respondent-wife was working overseas in Canada. On 15.12.2011, an application was filed by the parties indicating that they had settled the matter through C the Mediation Centre and that they would be filing a petition for divorce by mutual consent. Consequently, the HMA proceedings were disposed of as withdrawn, and the parties filed a joint petition u/s 13-B of the Act. The Additional District Judge, by order dated 13.4.2012, posted the matter on 15.10.2012 for the purpose of D second motion as contemplated u/s 13-B. In the instant appeal it was submitted on behalf of both the parties that the period that had elapsed since the original petition u/ s 12 of the Act could be counted towards the cooling off period of six months stipulated u/s 13-B of the Act. E Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 itself provides for a cooling off period of six months on F the first motion being moved, in the event the parties changed their minds during the said period. It is no doubt true that the Legislature had in its wisdom stipulated a cooling off period of six months from the date of filing of a petition for mutual divorce till such divorce is actually G granted, with the intention that it would save the institution of marriage. It is also true that the intention of the Legislature cannot be faulted with, but there may be occasions when in order to do complete justice to the parties it becomes necessary for this Court to invoke its H powers under Art. 142 of the Constitution of India in an 374 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 7 S.C.R. A irreconcilable situation. In appropriate cases invocation of such power would not be unjustified and may even prove to be necessary. [para 3, 9-10] [375-H; 376-A; 377- 0-F; 378-A-B] 8 1.2 It is quite clear from the materials on record that although the marriage between the parties was solemnized on 26.3.2011, within 3 months of the marriage the petitioner filed a petition u/s 12 of the Act for a decree of nullity of the marriage. Thereafter, they have not been c able to live together and lived separately for more than 1 year. In effect, there appear to be no marital ties between the parties at all. It is only the provisions of s.13-8(2) of the Act which is keeping the f
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.