MANISH GOEL versus ROHINI GOEL

Citation: [2010] 2 S.C.R. 414 · Decided: 05-02-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: AFTAB ALAM · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 4 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2010] 2 S.C.R. 414 
MANISH GOEL 
v. 
ROHINI GOEL 
(Special Leave Petition (C) No. 2954 of 2010) 
FEBRUARY 5, 2010 
[AFTAB ALAM AND DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, JJ.] 
Constitution of India, 1950: 
c 
Article 136 - Scope of - Application u/s 13-B(1) of Hindu 
Marriage Act for divorce by mutual consent pending before 
Family Court - Application to waive statutory period of six 
months rejected - Petition under Article 136 primarily on the 
ground that since relief could not be granted by any other 
0 
Court, there was no occasion for petitioner to approach High 
Court - HELD: The power under Article 136 cannot be used 
to short circuit the· legal procedure prescribed in overriding 
power- The Supreme Court generally does not permit a party 
to by-pass the normal procedure of appeal or reference to 
High Court unless a question of principle of great importance · 
E arises - It has to be exercised exceptionally and with caution 
and only in an extra-ordinary situations - More so, such power-
is to be exercised taking into consideration the well 
established principles which govern the exercise of overriding 
constitutional powers - In the instant case, there has been no 
F obstruction to the stream of justice nor has there been injustice 
to the parties, which is required to be eradicated by Supreme 
Court by grant of equitable relief- Petition does not raise any 
question of general public importance - Petition dismissed. 
G 
A nil Kumar Jain v. Maya Jain (2009) 10 SCC 415; 
Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, 
West Bengal AIR 1955 SC 65; The Union of India v. 
Kishorilal Gupta & Bros. AIR 1959 SC 1362; Murtaza & Sons 
H 
414 
MANISH GOEL v. ROHINI GOEL 
415 
& Anr. v. Nazir Mohd. Khan & Ors. AIR 1970 SC 668; Sirpur 
A 
Paper Mills Ltd. v. Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Hyderabad 
AIR 1970 SC 1520; The Municipal Corporation, Bhopal v. 
Misbahul Hasan & Ors. AIR 1972 SC 892; Delhi Judicial 
Service Association, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi v. State of 
Gujarat and Ors. AIR 1991 SC 2176; Tirupati Balaji 
B 
Developers Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Ors. AIR 2004 
SC 2351; and F.G.P. Ltd. v. Saleh Hooseini Doctor (2009) 
10 SCC 22~; Union oflndia & Ors. v. Kamai/ Singh (1995) 2 
sec 728, relied on. 
Article 142 - Scope of - Petitions for divorce and divorce 
C 
by mutual consent pending before Family Courts -
Application to waive statutory period of six months rejected -
In the petition under Article 136, prayer for exercise of 
jurisdiction under Article 142 made to grant divorce - HELD: 
Generally, no Court has competence to issue a direction 
D 
contrary to law nor the Court can direct an authority to act in 
contravention of the statutory provisions - The courts are 
meant to enforce the rule of law and not to pass the orders or 
directions which are contrary to what has been injected by law 
- In exercise of the power under Article 142, Supreme Court 
E 
generally does not pass an order in contravention of or 
ignoring the statutory provisions nor the power is exercised 
merely on sympathy -
In the instant case, none of 
contingencies, which may require the Court to exercise its 
extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 142, has been brought 
F 
out - Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - ss. 12 and 13-8(1). 
Ramesh Chander v. Savitri AIR 1995 SC 851; Kanchan 
Devi v. Promod Kumar Mittal AIR 1996 SC 3192; Anita 
Sabharwal v. Anil Sabharwal (1997) 11 SCC 490; Ashok G 
Hurra v. Rupa Bipin Zaveri AIR 1997 SC 1266; Kiran v. 
Sharad Dutt (2000) 10 SCC 243; Swati Verma v. Rajan 
Verma AIR 2004 SC 161; Harpit Singh Anand v. State of 
West Bengal (2004) 10 SCC 505; Jimmy Sudarshan Purohit 
H 
416 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2010] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
v. Sudarshan Sharad Purohit (2005) 13 SCC 410; Durga P. 
Tripathy v. Arundhati Tripathy AIR 2005 SC 3297;; Naveen 
Kohli v. Neelu Kohli AIR 2006 SC 1675; Sanghamitra Ghosh 
v. Kaja/ Kumar Ghosh (2007) 2 SCC 220; Rishikesh Sharma 
v. Saroj Sharma (2007) 2 SCC 263; Samar Ghosh v. Jaya 
B Ghosh (2007) 4 SCC 511; and Satish Sitole v. Ganga AIR 
2008 SC 3093; and Laxmidas Morarji (dead) by L.Rs. v. 
Behrose Darab Madan (2009) 10 SCC 425, referred to. 
Anjana Kishore v. Puneet Ki shore (2002) 10 SCC 194; 
C Chetan Dass v. Kam/a Devi AIR 2001 SC 1709; and Vishnu 
Dutt Sharma v. Manju Sharma (2009) 6 SCC 379; State of 
Punjab & Ors. v. Renuka Sing/a & Ors (1994) 1 SCC 175; 
State of UP. & Ors. v. Harish Chandra & Ors. AIR 1996 SC 
2173; Union of India & Anr. v. Kirfoskar Pneumatic Co. Ltd. 
A
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.