Jai Ho! What can we say when there is a clear Supreme court judgment that only SC can waive off 6 months waiting period on conversion of divorce petition into mutual consent divorce under Sec 13 B of HMA 1955. And a recent Punjab and Haryana High court judgment has upheld the SC judgment’s precedent in another similar case.
Anyway, let the couple live happily divorced now, we don’t have anything against them 🙂
Full judgment below with important points made bold:
—————————————————————————
http://www.indiankanoon.org/doc/1785177/
Civil Revision No. 7432 of 2009(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Revision No. 7432 of 2009(O&M)
Date of Decision: February 04, 2010
Parmodh Kumar …… Petitioner Versus
Meena …… Respondent Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari Present:
Mr.H.S.Bedi, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr.Amit Sharma , Advocate
for the respondent.
****
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Ajay Tewari, J.
This revision has been filed against the order of the learned
Addl.District Judge, Fast Track Court, Gurdaspur under the Hindu Marriage Act,
1956 (herein after referred to as ‘the Act’ for short) whereby the divorce
petition between the parties has been adjourned to 03.06.2010. Learned counsel
are agreed that originally the divorce petition had been filed by the
petitioner under Section 13 of the Act. Even before that the parties were
staying separately. During the pendency of the said petition a settlement came
about between the parties whereby they agreed to convert the pending divorce
petition into one under Section 13-B of the Act. Learned counsel for the
petitioner has argued that the petitioner has Civil Revision No. 7432 of
2009(O&M) 2 complied with all the conditions which had been mutually settled
between the parties for the grant of divorce by mutual consent and that
admittedly the parties have been staying separately for the past many years. In
the circumstances it is his contention that adjournment of the case for a
further period of six months is not in the interest of justice and is in fact
an extremely blinkered view of law. He has further argued that six months’
period mentioned in the Section would apply only to fresh petitions. He has
relied upon a decision of this court in Amarjeet Kaur v. Bhupinder Singh
reported as 2007(1) RCR(Civil) 834 wherein, in similar circumstances the period
of six months was waived. Learned counsel for the respondent has no objection.
Keeping in view the totality of circumstances and the exposition
of law in the aforesaid judgment, I find the present to be also a case where
the period of six months should be waived. Consequently the order of the
learned trial Court is set aside and the period of six months is waived. Let
the parties appear before the trial Court on 15.02.2010. The learned trial
\court will either finalise the divorce petition on that day or, if the same is
not possible for any pressing reasons, definitely strive to finally dispose the
same of within the month of February, 2010. With these observations this
revision is disposed of. Since the main case has been decided, the Civil Misc.
Applications, if any, stand disposed of.
(AJAY TEWARI)
JUDGE
February 04, 2010
sunita
Leave a Reply