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

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.

No Rebate For Stamp Duty Paid In Another State - Bombay HC

A three judge bench of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court (Bombay HC) in a recent judgment in the matter of Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Maharashtra State, Pune and Superintendent of Stamp (Headquarters), Mumbai v Reliance Industries Limited, Mumbai and Reliance Petroleum Limited, Gujarat1 has held that orders in case of a scheme of arrangement under Section 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 (Act) involving different High Courts in multiple states, are separate instruments in themselves. Accordingly, stamp duty would be payable on all the orders (and consequently, all the states) without the benefit of remission, rebate or set-off.

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...