Allowed

Subhra Suchandan Datta v. Mohua Datta

Bombay HC8 Nov 2023WP/13491/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition quashed a District Judge's order rejecting an application to waive the six-month cooling-off period for divorce under Section 28 of the Special Marriage Act, directing the Judge to permit the application considering the Supreme Court decision in Amardeep vs. Harveen Kaur.

What did the court decide?

Quashed the impugned order dated 21st September, 2023. Directed the District Judge to permit the parties to file an application for waiving the cooling-off period and to consider it in light of Amarde

Subhra Suchandan Datta Vs Mohua Datta — Matrimonial and Divorce | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

2023:BHC-AS:34477-DB

¶2

sa_mandawgad 1/3

¶3

11wp13491-23

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 13491 O F 2023

¶6

Subhra Suchandan Datta … Petitioner. Versus Mrs.Mohua Datta … Respondent.

¶7

Mr. Vishwanath Patil i/by Mr.Ashwin Hawelikar for the Petitioner. Mr. Datta Mane for the Respondent.

¶8

CORAM : SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH, J. DATE : November 08, 2023.

¶9

P. C. :

¶10

Heard.

¶11

The Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 21^st

¶12

September, 2023, passed by the District Judge-1, Panvel, on the joint application filed by the Petitioner and Respondent for taking the Petition on board, to enable the parties to file an application to waive the cooling off period.

¶13

Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that in view of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Amardeep vs. Harveen

¶14

Kaur, reported in 2017 (8) SCC 746 , the parties, were desirous to move an application seeking wavier of statutory period provided under Section 28 of the Special Marriage Act. He would submit that

2/3

11wp13491-23

sa_mandawgad

however, the learned District Judge has not permitted the filing of the application on the ground that already on 21^st August, 2023, the order directing the parties to observe the six months cooling off period was passed.

¶19

Learned counsel appearing for the Respondent submits that even the Respondent seeks to join the Petitioner in that application for waiver of the cooling off period.

¶20

By the impugned order dated 21^st September, 2023, the application of the parties for the purpose of taking the matter on board, to enable the parties to file the application for waiver of cooling off period was rejected. It appears that the matter has now been listed on 21^st February, 2024. On 21^st August, 2023, the learned District Judge in the absence of the parties and their Advocates had verified the petition for divorce which was presented under Section 28 of the Special Marriage Act and directed the parties to observe six months cooling off period.

¶21

At that time, there was no application filed for waiving of the cooling off period and as such, the order of 21^st August, 2023 cannot be said to be an order passed on the application moved by the parties to waive of the cooling off period, so as to operate as res

¶22

sa_mandawgad 3/3

¶23

11wp13491-23

¶24

judicata as is sought to be observed by the impugned order.

¶25

In view of the above, the impugned order dated 21^st September, 2023 is quashed and set aside. Learned District Judge-1, Panvel is directed to permit the parties to take the matter on board for the purpose of filing of the application for waiving of the cooling off period. If such an application is filed, the leaned District Judge to consider the same in light of the decision of the Apex Court in Amardeep vs. Harveen Kaur (supra), and pass order in accordance with law.

¶26

Writ Petition stands allowed in the above terms.

¶27

(Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.)

Subhra Suchandan Datta v. Mohua Datta

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Subhra Suchandan Datta v. Mohua Datta

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bhavan Mulchand Shah and Ors. Vs Unique (Enterprises India)

The State of Maharashtra and Anr. Vs Shri Premchand Shobhagmal Modi

Homi J Chibber Vs Mita Khimji Shah and Ors.

Modi Spinning and Weaving Co.Ltd. Vs Hitesh Ashok Bhatia

M/S Kamdar Nursing Home and Polyclinic Pvt. Ltd. Vs Mrs. Amritben Jhaverchand Shah Since Decd, Thr It Lrs and Ors.

Darshan Kapadia Vs Nikita Bharwada