Allowed

Naresh Chandra Yadav v. Smt. Santoshi Yadav

Chhattisgarh HC16 Aug 2023FA(MAT)/80/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court, in an appeal against a dismissed divorce petition, allowed the mutual divorce application under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act. Waiving the six-month cooling-off period, the court granted divorce based on the parties' settlement and separation since 2018.

What did the court decide?

Divorce granted by mutual consent; six-month cooling-off period waived; parties to comply with Samjhouta Patra terms.

Naresh Chandra Yadav Vs Smt. Santoshi Yadav — Matrimonial and Divorce | Chhattisgarh HC (2023)

¶1

Page 1 of 4

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

FA(MAT) No. 80 of 2020

¶5

Naresh Chandra Yadav S/o Shri Umesh Chandra Yadav, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Village - Mudapara, Post - Pakargaon, Thana And Tahsil Patthalgaon, Civil And Revenue District Jashpur (C.G.).

¶6

---- Appellant

¶7

Versus

¶8

Smt. Santoshi Yadav D/o Shri Dileshwar Yadav, Aged About 22 Years, R/o Village - Mudapara, Post - Pakargaon, Thana And Tahsil Patthalgaon, Civil And Revenue District Jashpur (C.G.). At Present Residence Of Village Dodrahi, Post Ranpur, Thana Narayanpur, Tahsil Bagicha, District Jashpur (C.G.).

¶9

--- Respondent

¶10

For Appellant : Mr. A.N. Bhakta, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. J.K. Gupta, Advocate.

¶11

Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri

¶12

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal

¶13

Judgment/Order on Board

¶14

Per Goutam Bhaduri J.

¶15

16/08/2023

¶16

1. Heard.

¶17

1. The present appeal is against the judgment and decree dated 27/11/2019 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Jashpur (C.G.) in Civil Suit No. 14-A/2018, whereby the suit filed by the husband seeking divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (in short “the Act, 1955”) was dismissed. Therefore, the instant appeal by the husband.

¶18

1. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the marriage between the appellant and the respondent was solemnized on 14/05/2013 and

¶19

Page 2 of 4

¶20

out of the wedlock, a girl child was born. However, with the passage of time, on different issues, the petition for divorce was filed, which eventually got dismissed by the learned Family Court. Being aggrieved by such dismissal of the divorce petition, this instant petition has been preferred.

¶21

During the pendency of this appeal, an application has been filed under Section 13(B) of the Act, 1955 seeking divorce. An application under Section 13-B(2) of the Act, 1955 is also filed for waiver of statutory cooling-off period of six month. Both the appellant and respondent are present before this Court and would submit that they have mutually agreed to part their ways and arrived at a settlement, which is styled as “Samjhouta Patra” and, accordingly, the demand draft of rupees ten lakh is being handed over to the respondent/wife, which she acknowledged

¶22

It is submitted by the parties that they are living separately since 02/06/2018. The parties agreed to withdraw both the cases, which are pending before this Court i.e. FA (MAT) No. 80/2020 (Naresh Chandra Yadav Vs. Smt. Santoshi Yadav) and CRR No. 505/2023 (Smt. Santoshi Yadav Vs. Naresh Chandra Yadav) as per the terms of “Samjhouta Patra”. It is further agreed that the appellant/husband shall pay an amount of Rs. 5,000/- per month to his daughter Siksha Yadav till April 2024. The “Samjhouta Patra” has been placed on record.

¶23

1. The Supreme Court in a case law reported in (2017) 7 SCC page 746 – Amardeep Singh Vs. Harveen Kaur has held that in the year 1976, the concept of divorce by mutual consent was

¶24

Page 3 of 4

¶25

introduced and however, section 13-B(2) contains a bar to divorce being granted before six months of time elapsing after filing of the divorce petition by mutual consent. The said period was laid down to enable the parties to have a rethink so that the court grant divorce by mutual consent only if there is no chance for reconciliation. The Supreme Court has further laid down the following principles at para 19 :

¶26

“19. Applying the above to the present situation, we are of the view that where the court dealing with a matter is satisfied that a case is made out to waive the statutory period under Section 13B(2), it can do so after considering the following:

¶27

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

¶28

(ii) all efforts for mediation/conciliation including efforts in terms of Order 32-A 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;

¶29

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

¶30

(iv) the waiting period will only prolong their agony.”

¶31

Applying the aforesaid principles to the present case, the parties are decided to part their way by stating that they are living separately since 02/06/2018 and arrived at a settlement as per the terms of the “Samjhouta Patra”, we deem it proper to waive the statutory period of six months and the presence of the parties fortifies the fact that they intent to get separated and the waiting period will only prolong their agony. Accordingly, the applications

¶32

Page 4 of 4

¶33

under Section 13-B of the Act, 1955 for grant of mutual divorce on account of settlement took place on 31/07/2023 and under Section 13-B(2) of the Act, 1955 for waiver of the statutory cooling period for mutual divorce are allowed.

¶34

1. The amount of rupees ten lakhs by way of demand draft is being handed over to the respondent/wife. Copy of the said demand draft is also placed on record. Accordingly, it is ordered that the marriage solemnized between the appellant Naresh Chandra Yadav and respondent Smt. Santoshi Yadav on 14/05/2013 shall stands dissolved by decree of divorce. The terms of the “Samjhouta Patra” would be the part of decree.

¶35

1. A decree be drawn accordingly.

¶36

-Sd/-Sd/(Goutam Bhaduri) (Sanjay S. Agrawal) Judge Judge

¶37

Chandrakant

Naresh Chandra Yadav v. Smt. Santoshi Yadav

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Naresh Chandra Yadav v. Smt. Santoshi Yadav

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

Asutosh Dewangan Vs Smt. Savita Dewangan

Ramdhan Korva Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Yashwardhan Tiwari Vs Dr. Rupali Mathur

South Eastern Coalfields Limited And Anr. Vs Ajay Kumar Agarwal

Sunil Sharma Vs Registrar High Court of M.P., Jabalpur

Bhima Baghel Vs State of Chhattisgarh