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

One Sided Clauses In Builder-Buyer Agreements Is An Unfair Trade Practice

In CIVIL APPEAL NO. 12238 OF 2018, Pioneer Urban Land & Infrastructure Ltd. vs Govindan Raghavan, an appeal was filed before the Supreme Court  by the builder against the order of the National Consumer Forum. The builder had relied upon various clauses of the Apartment Buyer’s Agreement to refute the claim of the respondent but was rejected by the commission which found the said clauses as wholly one-sided, unfair and unreasonable, and could not be relied upon. The Supreme Court on perusal of the Apartment Buyer’s Agreement found stark incongruities between the remedies available to both the parties. For example, Clause 6.4 (ii) of the Agreement entitles the Appellant – Builder to charge Interest @18% p.a. on account of any delay in payment of installments from the Respondent – Flat Purchaser. Clause 6.4 (iii) of the Agreement entitles the Appellant – Builder to cancel the allotment and terminate the Agreement, if any installment remains in arrears for more than 30 da...
Post a Comment
Read more

Inherited property of childless hindu woman devolve onto heirs of her parents

In Tarabai Dagdu Nitanware vs Narayan Keru Nitanware, quashing an order passed by a joint civil judge junior division, Pune, the Bombay High Court has held that under Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, any property inherited by a female Hindu from her father or mother, will devolve upon the heirs of her father/mother, if she dies without any children of her own, and not upon her husband. Justice Shalini Phansalkar Joshi was hearing a writ petition filed by relatives of one Sundarabai, who died issueless more than 45 years ago on June 18, 1962. Article referred:http://www.livelaw.in/property-inherited-female-hindu-parents-shall-devolve-upon-heirs-father-not-husband-dies-childless-bombay-hc-read-judgment/
Post a Comment
Read more

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.
Post a Comment
Read more