Skip to main content

No waiver of 6-month waiting period before divorce: HC

Gujarat high court has ruled that the conciliation period of six months cannot be waived to get divorce decree, and it has also made it clear that only Supreme Court has got the power to grant relaxation in such cases by invoking the doctrine of irretrievable breakdown of marriage.

Justice Abhilasha Kumari refused to waive the six-month compulsory separation after filing of divorce petition by an estranged couple, which wanted the separated wife's visa to be extended. The wife, who is residing in the UK, wanted divorce decree before December 31, as she is required to apply for renewal of student visa. She expressed her inability to return to India before that and requested the court to waive the mandatory separation period.

The couple, Jignesh and Anushi, got married in 2009, but could not live together for more than two years. They separated in 2011 and the wife went to the UK after obtaining dependent visa for study. In September 2011, the couple filed for divorce decree. She claimed that for renewal of the visa she would have to furnish divorce decree and hence the cooling-off period should be waived. But the family court refused to entertain her plea for quick divorce.

The couple then moved the HC and sought direction to the family court to give divorce decree soon so that the wife was not put to any hardship. They also contended that there was no hope for reunion and the marriage was irretrievably broken. They were living separately for two years, and the court should take into consideration their long separation as well as the visa issue for waiving the cooling-off period.

However, the high court refused to take into consideration any reason for expediting the process. While the court felt that the parties could not furnish any substantial evidence on how divorce decree would help in extension of visa, it also discussed in detail over the legal provision. The court appointed advocate S P Majmudar as amicus curiae so that the legal issue on possibility of waving of six-month period after filing for divorce can be settled.

After hearing the case, the judge concluded that high courts and civil courts cannot exercise their powers for curtailment of the statutory waiting period of six months under section 13B(2) of the Act, but only apex court can do it.

Comments

Most viewed this month

Deposit Of Minimum 20% Fine/Compensation U/s 148 NI Act Mandatory

In OP(Crl.).No.348 OF 2019, T.K.SAJEEVAN vs FRANCIS T.CHACKO, the appeal was filed against the order of the lower court to deposit 25% of the fine before filling of appeal. The appellant argued that the deposit introduced through the Section 148 of the NI Act after amendment was directory in nature as it used the term 'may' while mentioning the issue of deposit. The Kerala High Court however disagreeing held that in view of the object of the Legislature while incorporating Section 148 into N.I. Act, the word 'may' will have to be read as 'shall'. The imposition of payment contemplated under Section 148 N.I. Act cannot be restricted to some prosecutions and evaded in other prosecutions. Since the amount directed to be deposited being compensation, undoubtedly, it is liable to be ordered to be deposited irrespective of the nature of the prosecution. Therefore, the word 'may' can only be taken to have the colour and meaning of 'shall' and there

NCLT - Mere admission of receipt of money does not qualify as a financial debt

Cause Title : Meghna Devang Juthani Vs Ambe Securities Private Limited, National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai, CP (IB) No. 974/MB-VI/2020 Date of Judgment/Order : 18.12.2023 Corum : Hon’ble Shri K. R. Saji Kumar, Member (Judicial) Hon’ble Shri Sanjiv Dutt, Member (Technical) Citied:  Carnoustie Management India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CBS International Projects Private Limited, NCLT Swiss Ribbons Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs. Union of India & Ors. (2019) Sanjay Kewalramani vs Sunil Parmanand Kewalramani & Ors. (2018) Pawan Kumar vs. Utsav Securities Pvt Ltd 2021 Background Application was filed under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 alleging loan of Rs, 1.70 cr is due. The Applicate identified herself as the widow and heir of the lender but could not produce any documents proving financial contract between her Late husband and the CD but claimed that the CD has accepted that money was received from her husband. The applicant subsequently filed rejoinder claiming the debt t

Jurisdiction of consumer forum is not ousted even if the other party has filed suit on the same matter in Civil Court

In Yashwant Rama Jadhav v. Shaukat Hussain Shaikh, First Appeal No. 1229 of 2017, decided on 18.11.2017,  the grievance of the petitioner before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission was that appellants/complainants had entered into agreements with the respondents for purchase of residential flats, which the respondents were to construct and despite paying the substantial amount to the respondents, the construction of the flats had not been completed. The State Commission dismissed the complaints and ruled in favor of respondents against which the appellants approached the National Commission. The NCDRC held that Section ‘3’ of the Consumer Protection Act, to the extent it is relevant provides that the provisions of the Act shall be in addition and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. Thus the remedy available under the Consumer Protection Act is an additional remedy, which Parliament has made available to a consumer. Even