Mutual Consent Divorce-Made Easy

Mutual Consent Divorce -Made Easy

The supreme court on 12/09/2017 in Amrdeep Singh Vs. Harveen Kaur.

Prior to the judgement there was 6 months seperation period between the two motions  i.e 13(1)(a) and 13(1)(b) of the mutual consent divorce.

The idea of having 6 months of separation period is to give reconciliation between the parties.

There were conflicting views by the Supreme Court on this point. While it was held in Anjana Kishore v. Puneet Kishore (2002) 10 SCC 194 that the period can be waived by the Supreme Court in exercise of powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, a contrary view was taken in Manish Goel v. Rohini Goel (2010) 4 SCC 393, wherein it was held that Article 142 could not be invoked contrary to a statutory prescripttion. Though the matter was referred to a larger bench to resolve the conflict, the issue got infructuous in the meantime as parties got divorce in the meantime. Recently in 2016, the Supreme Court had waived the waiting period under Article 142.

The Court held that that the period mentioned in Section 13B(2) was not mandatory but directory,  and that it will be open to the Court to exercise its discretion in the facts and circumstances of each case where there was no possibility of parties resuming cohabitation and there were chances of alternative rehabilitation.

It was held that where the Court dealing with a matter was satisfied that a case was made out to waive the statutory period under Section 13B(2), it can do so after considering the following :

1. the statutory period of six months specified in Section 13B(2), in addition to the statutory period of one year under Section 13B(1) of separation of parties is already over before the first motion itself;

2. all efforts for mediation/conciliation including efforts in terms of Order XXXIIA Rule 3 CPC/Section 23(2) of the Act/Section 9 of the Family Courts Act to reunite the parties have failed and there is no likelihood of success in that direction by any further efforts;…

3. the parties have genuinely settled their differences including alimony, custody of child or any other pending issues between the parties;

4. the waiting period will only prolong their agony

By: Advocate Nitish Banka

Supreme Court of India

9891549997

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ICe0JYNbKv8

Mutual Consent Divorce-Made Easy

Mutual Consent Divorce -Made Easy

The supreme court on 12/09/2017 in Amrdeep Singh Vs. Harveen Kaur.

Prior to the judgement there was 6 months seperation period between the two motions  i.e 13(1)(a) and 13(1)(b) of the mutual consent divorce.

The idea of having 6 months of separation period is to give reconciliation between the parties.

There were conflicting views by the Supreme Court on this point. While it was held in Anjana Kishore v. Puneet Kishore (2002) 10 SCC 194 that the period can be waived by the Supreme Court in exercise of powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, a contrary view was taken in Manish Goel v. Rohini Goel (2010) 4 SCC 393, wherein it was held that Article 142 could not be invoked contrary to a statutory prescripttion. Though the matter was referred to a larger bench to resolve the conflict, the issue got infructuous in the meantime as parties got divorce in the meantime. Recently in 2016, the Supreme Court had waived the waiting period under Article 142.

The Court held that that the period mentioned in Section 13B(2) was not mandatory but directory,  and that it will be open to the Court to exercise its discretion in the facts and circumstances of each case where there was no possibility of parties resuming cohabitation and there were chances of alternative rehabilitation.

It was held that where the Court dealing with a matter was satisfied that a case was made out to waive the statutory period under Section 13B(2), it can do so after considering the following :

1. the statutory period of six months specified in Section 13B(2), in addition to the statutory period of one year under Section 13B(1) of separation of parties is already over before the first motion itself;

2. all efforts for mediation/conciliation including efforts in terms of Order XXXIIA Rule 3 CPC/Section 23(2) of the Act/Section 9 of the Family Courts Act to reunite the parties have failed and there is no likelihood of success in that direction by any further efforts;…

3. the parties have genuinely settled their differences including alimony, custody of child or any other pending issues between the parties;

4. the waiting period will only prolong their agony

By: Advocate Nitish Banka

Supreme Court of India

9891549997

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ICe0JYNbKv8