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

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Appellate authorities under Special Statutes cannot be asked to condone delay

Madras High Court in R.Gowrishankar vs. The Commissioner of Service Tax has held that Appellate authorities cannot be asked to condone the delay, beyond the extended period of limitation A Division Bench comprising of Justices S. Manikumar and D. Krishnakumar, made this observation while considering an appeal filed against Single Bench order declining to set aside the order made in the condone delay petition filed by the petitioner to condone 223 days in filing the appeal before the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals). Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/appellate-authorities-special-statutes-cannot-asked-condone-delay-beyond-extended-period-limitation-madras-hc/
Post a Comment
Read more

'Seize assets to pay damages to accident victim'

Her story might be an inspiration for the physically challenged but justice has remained elusive for her. In 2008, a bus accident left research engineer S Thenmozhi, 30, paraplegic. In April 2013, the motor accident claims tribunal directed the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (TNSTC) to provide her a compensation of 57.9 lakh. However, TNSTC refused to budge and on Tuesday a city court ordered attaching of movable assets of the transport corporation. Thenmozhi was employed in C-DOT, a telecom technology development centre in Bangalore. On July 21, 2008, she was coming to Chennai in a private bus. Around 2am, the bus had a flat tyre and the driver parked it on the left side of the road near Pallikonda in Vellore district on the Bangalore-Chennai highway. While the tyre was being changed, a TNSTC bus of Dharmapuri division hit the stationary bus. The rear part of the bus was smashed and passengers were injured. Thenmozhi who had a seat at the back of the bus suffered...
Post a Comment
Read more

Mumbai ITAT rules income of offshore discretionary trust is subject to tax in India

The Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently determined the following issue in the affirmative in the case of Manoj Dhupelia: Should the income of an offshore discretionary trust be subject to tax in India, if no distributions have been made to beneficiaries in India? The question arose from appeals filed by individual beneficiaries in relation to a Lichtenstein-based trust, the Ambrunova Trust and Merlyn Management SA (the Trust) with the ITAT. It is important to note that the individuals in this case were amongst those first identified by the Government of India (GOI) as holding undeclared bank accounts in Lichtenstein. The ITAT ruling raises the following issues: Taxation of Trust Corpus: ITAT classified the corpus of the trust as "undisclosed income" and declared it taxable in the hands of the beneficiaries. Taxation of Undistributed Income: ITAT refused to draw a distinction between the corpus and undistributed income from the trust and declared i...
Post a Comment
Read more