Disposed

Shivam Dembla & Anr. v. Nemo

Delhi HC27 Feb 2024MAT.APP.(F.C.)/59/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Coram dismissed the appellants' appeal against the Family Court's rejection of their request to waive the one-year separation period under Section 14(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act. The High Court directed the Family Court to consider the waiver and waive the six-month cooling-off period due to irreconcilable differences.

What did the court decide?

Appellants directed to wait until statutory period is complete; Family Court directed to consider waiver of one-year period and six-month cooling-off period; petition listed for First Motion.

Shivam Dembla & Anr. Vs Nemo — Matrimonial and Divorce | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~1

¶2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- MAT.APP.(F.C.) 59/2024

¶4

SHIVAM DEMBLA & ANR. ..... Appellants

¶5

Through: Mr Rudra Vikram Singh and Mr Tarshith Bhardwaj, Advocates. Appellant no.1 through VC. Appellant no.2 in person.

¶6

versus

¶7

NEMO ..... Respondent Through: None.

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT BANSAL

¶9

O R D E R % 27.02.2024

¶10

[Physical Hearing/Hybrid Hearing (as per request)]

¶11

On the previous date, we had heard the counsel for the appellants.

¶12

After hearing the counsel for the appellants, we had set down the broad contours of the case. For convenience, the relevant part of the order dated 20.02.2024 is extracted hereinafter:

¶13

“2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 24.01.2024, passed by the Principal Judge, Family Courts, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi wherein, the application filed on behalf of the appellants for waiving off the statutory period of one year under Section 14(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 [in short, “1955 Act”] has been rejected.”

¶14

3. The record shows that the appellants entered into matrimony on 10.05.2023 and they separated on 22.05.2023.

¶15

MAT.APP.(F.C.) 59/2024 Page 1 of 3

¶16

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 29/02/2024 at 11:18:57

¶17

4. We are told that the application under Section 14(1) of the 1955 Act was filed on 09.01.2024.

¶18

5. The appellants have also filed a petition under Section 13B of the 1955 Act.

¶19

5.1 The said application cannot proceed further in view of the fact that the appellants, admittedly, have not lived separately for a minimum period of one year as prescribed under sub-section 1 of section 14 of the 1955 Act.

¶20

6. It is the case of the counsel for the appellants that the proviso to sub-Section 1 of Section 14 of the 1955 Act can be triggered in the facts and circumstances of the case.

¶21

7. We are told that the appellant no.1 i.e., the husband, is a citizen of Canada and is likely to leave India soon.

¶22

8. We would like the appellants to remain present in court on the next date of hearing, before we proceed further in the matter.

¶23

9. List the appeal on 27.02.2024.”

¶24

Today, the appellant no.1 has joined the proceedings through video conferencing, while the appellant no.2 is physically present in court.

¶25

We have interacted with the appellants. The appellants seem to have temperamental differences, which, apparently are irreconcilable.

¶26

The appellant no.1 informs us that he is a citizen of Canada and is presently employed in a company located in Toronto.

¶27

The appellant no.2 on the other hand, is a resident of Delhi and is employed in a company located in Gurugram.

¶28

Apart from geographical distance, there is also a huge temperamental chasm between the couple.

¶29

That said, the only glitch in passing the decree of divorce, as is evident on

¶30

MAT.APP.(F.C.) 59/2024 Page 2 of 3

¶31

¶32

perusal of the impugned judgment and order, is that the appellants have not lived separately for the minimum statutory period of 1 year.

¶33

Since the appellants will complete the minimum statutory period on 22.05.2024, the pending petition under Section 13(B) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 in our view, can be considered thereafter.

¶34

The Family Court can also consider waiving the cooling off period of 6 months between the First Motion and the Second Motion, given the circumstances obtaining in the matter.

¶35

The pending Section 13(B) petition will be listed before the concerned Family Court on 24.05.2024, for consideration of the First Motion. 12. The concerned Family Court will permit the appellant no.1 to join the proceedings via video conferencing, in case he is not able to visit India and remain physically present.

¶36

Furthermore, if a request is made, as indicated above, to waive the statutory period of 6 months between the date of First Motion and Second Motion, that too will be considered by the Family Court.

¶37

The appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

¶38

The Registry will dispatch a copy of this order to the concerned Family Court.

¶39

Parties will act based on the digitally signed copy of the order.

¶40

Pending application, if any, shall stand closed.

¶41

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

¶42

AMIT BANSAL, J

¶43

FEBRUARY 27, 2024/ at

¶44

Click here to check corrigendum, if any

¶45

MAT.APP.(F.C.) 59/2024 Page 3 of 3

¶46

Shivam Dembla & Anr. v. Nemo

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shivam Dembla & Anr. v. Nemo

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Prakash Dutt Vs Bhawana Chopra

Geeta Sharma Vs Rishi Bhardwaj

Ruchika Mazumdar Vs Himanshu Mitra

Narener Singh Vs Prachi Jain

Ram Nath Vs Singari Devi

Vimal Tyagi Vs Doli Tyagi

Amardeep Singh Johar Vs Sarbjot Kaur

Kanwal Kishore Girdhar Vs Seema Girdhar

M/S Sowil Limited Vs Indian Highways Management Company Limited

Prakash Dutt Vs Bhawana Chopra

Govt of NCT of Delhi & Anr. Vs Lokesh Sharma & Anr.

M/S Mac Associates Vs Parvinder Singh

General Manager Uco Bank Vs Smt. Aditi Gaur and Anr.

M/S Santoshi Polymers Vs Shri Akshat Kohli