This appeal challenged an interlocutory order granting a mutual divorce to Hindu spouses who had been living separately for over ten years and remained unconsummated. The High Court dismissed the appeal.
Appeal dismissed, mutual divorce decree allowed, marriage dissolved.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
g8;
HI6H COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
F.A.No. 69/2004
Before: Hon'ble Shri Dmp Raosaheb Deshmukh, J.
l v. f/er
Appel IanT/ 6han$hyam Pa'rel, 5/0 Ram Prasad (AppI icanf) Pa'rel, Aged abouT 31 years, R/o ViHage Jagdalli, P.5. Sakfi, Dist Janjgir Champa (C5,) Versus Re$pondenTI 5mT. Gayatri Pa'rel, W/o (Non-appIican'r) Ghanshyam PaTeL Aged abouT 3O years,R/oVillageJagdalli,P.5. Sak‘H, Dis-t. Janjgir Champa (C.6.). A1” presen‘r D/o Purusho‘H'em Lal Pafel, R/o Village Dha‘l‘l’ari; Tahsil Mungeli,rDis1': Bilaspur.
Re$pondenTI
(Non-appIican'r)
Appellalnf-Ghanshyam Pa'l'el wi‘rh Shri Pmfull N. Bhamf, Advoca‘re. RespondenT—Smf. Gayal'ri Pafel with Shri H.B. Agmwal, 5r. Advoca‘l'e wl'lh Ms. Sangim Mishm, Advocafe.
ORDER (09.03.2007)
Heard on applicafion (I.A.No,534 of 2007) under Order 23 Rule 3 of C.P.C. for gran‘l'ing decree of mulual divorce which was filed on 2201,2007. Prior ‘l’o ‘ihis, on 01.03.2005 bo‘l'h fhe spouses had 'of made an applica'rion under $ec1'ion 13-8 Hindu Marriage AcT for The decree of mufual divorce 2.: Ghanshyam Pafel Is iden'hfled by Shri Prafull N Bhara‘r learned counsel for fhe appellan‘r and Smf Goya‘l'ri Pa‘rel is iden‘hfied by Ms. Sangn‘a Mishra, learned counsel‘for 'rhe respondent Their phofographsarealsofurnishedwhichare placed on record. Bo‘l'h fhe
‘rhe respondem have swfedbeforemeThuffheyare appellan'rand Hving separa‘reiysincamoreThan10yearsandare—unionisimpossible. is‘ BoTh of Them havesfafed ‘rhaf mufual divorce sough‘rbyThem voiun‘tdryandwi‘rhoutanycoercionor-‘rhreu'r. 5min6ayu‘i'riPufeiuiso submiftedfhd‘rshehasreiinquishedherright1'0cinimalimonyfrom herhusband.
Thereshallbeno 5. Consequenfly,fhisappealsfandsdisposedof
\se
\
orderasfocos‘rs.
nILIP RAOSAHEB DesHMUKH
lldge
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the application for mutual divorce filed under Section 13(8) of the Hindu Marriage Act was voluntary and satisfied the requirements of law.
Whether the spouses had been living separately for at least one year since the date of filing the application for mutual divorce.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Ghanshyam Patel
Smt. Gayatri Patel
Arl Prihal Lal Patel
Dip Raosaheb Deshmukh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
