LexSONI KUMARI versus DEEPAK KUMAR
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2lJ1b] 10 S.C.R. 305 SONIKUMARI V. DEEPAK KUMAR (Civil Appeal No. 7164 of 2015) SEPTEMBER 16, 2015 [M.Y. EQBALAND C. NAGAPPAN, JJ.] A B Constitution of India, 1950: Article 142 - Invocation of power under-For waiving the cooling off period of 6 months c for filing second motion uls. 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act - Held: In the instant case, Family Court had made necessary efforts for reconciliation between the parties but efforts failed -Appellant-wife taking plea that respondent-husband has to leave India for job purpose and it was not possible for him to D return back in a year or two and, therefore, she would suffer mental agony and would also not be able to remarry- It is a fit case where in order to do complete justice to the parties, it is necessary to invoke the power u!Art. 142 in an irreconcilable situation - Cooling off period of 6 months E waived and decree of divorce by mutual consent granted - Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - s. 13-8(1 ). Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. The order passed by the Family Court F clearly showed that before passing the impugned order under Section 13-8(1) of the Act, the Family Court made necessary efforts for reconciliation between the parties but the efforts yielded no fruitful result. The Family Court, G before passing the order, carefully perused the· entire materials on the record including the joint statement of the parties. It is also not disputed that the respondent- husband would be leaving India for his job purpose and 305 H 306 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015)108.C.R. A once he goes out of the country, it would not be possible for him to return back in a year or two. In the event the respondent is not returned within the stipulated time for second motion then the appellant-wife would not only suffer mental agony but would also be not able to B remarry. [Para 8) [311-G-H; 312-A-B] 2. There is no connivance of any of the parties in the decision taken by the appellant and the respondent. It is a fit case where in order to do complete justice to C the parties it becomes necessary to invoke the power under Article 142 of the Constitution in an irreconcilable situation. [Para 12] [315-F] Vimi Vinod Chopra vs. Vinod Gulshan Chopra D (2013) 15 SCC 547; Devinder Singh Narula vs. E F G H Meenakshi Nangia (2012) 8 SCC 580: 2012 (7) SCR 372; Anil Kumar Jain vs. Maya Jain (2009) 10 sec 415: 2009 (14) SCR 90 - relied on. Case Law Reference (2013) 15 sec 547 ·2012 (7) SCR 372 relied on. relied on. 2009 (14) SCR 90 relied on. Para 9 Para 10 Para 11 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 7164of2015 From the Judgment and Order dated 14.07.2015 of Family Court, South, Saket Court, New Delhi in HMA No. 613 of2015. Dr. Nirmal Chopra for the Appellant. SONI KUMARI v. DEEPAK KUMAR 307 Jatin Sapra (for Debasis Misra) for the Respondent. A The Judgment of the Court was delivered by M.Y. EQBAL, J.: 1. Leave granted. 2. This appeal by special leave is directed against order 8 dated 14. 7 .201.5 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court South, Saket, New Delhi in HMA No.613 of 2015, whereby petition for first motion for divorce by mutual consent under section 13-8(1) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (in short, 'the Act') moved by the parties has been allowed. However, Family Court C rejected prayer for waiving of statutory period of six months prescribed under section 13-8(2) of the Act for filing second motion. 3. The brief facts of the case lie in a narrow compass. D 4. The appellant and the respondent married as per Hindu rites and customs at the parental house of the appellant sometime in the year 2009 and after marriage they shifted to Delhi. The parties ever since the marriage did not pull together E being of different habits, ideas and completely different in nature and temperament. They could not adjust with each other at all. Since February 2014, the appellant and the respondent started living separately as they had irreconcilable differences and there was no possibility of any reconciliation between them. F As a result, the appellant and the respondent filed a joint petition for divorce by mutual consent as contemplated under section 13-8( 1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 in the court of Principal Judge, Family Court, South Saket, New Delhi. Along with that joint petition for divorce, parties placed on record a G true copy of details/confirmed air ticket from Delhi to
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.