Allowed

Mehak Chauhan v. Abhinav Sharma

Punjab & Haryana HC21 Dec 2021CR/2919/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

HC of Punjab and Haryana set aside a Family Court order dismissing an application to waive the six-month waiting period for mutual divorce under Section 13-B. The Court allowed the petition, directing the Family Court to proceed with recording statements and disposing of the matter on merits.

What did the court decide?

Order dated 30.09.2021 set aside; Family Court directed to entertain joint petition under Section 13-B by waiving six months period and proceed on merits.

Mehak Chauhan Vs Abhinav Sharma — Matrimonial and Divorce | Punjab & Haryana HC (2021)

¶1

Sr. No. 210

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

CR No.2919-2021 Date of decision: 21.12.2021

¶4

Mehak Chauhan Petitioner No.1

¶5

And

¶6

Abhinav Sharma Petitioner No.2

¶7

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA

¶8

Present: Mr.Sylvester Stephen, Advocate, for petitioner No.1.

¶9

Mr. Naresh Jain, Advocate, for petitioner No.2. along withpetitioners in person.

¶10

¶11

ARUN MONGA, J. (ORAL)

¶12

This is a joint petition filed by both husband and wife under Article 227 of Constitution of India seeking to set aside an order dated 30.09.2021 (Annexure P-3), passed by Learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Panchkula whereby, application for waiver of statutory period of 06 months filed in apetition under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 has been dismissed.

¶13

Reliance, inter alia, is placed on the guidelines laid down by Supreme Court in case titled as “ Amardeep Singh v. Harveen Kaur, 2017 (8) SCC 746 ”.

¶14

Succinctly, brief facts of the case first. Marriage of the parties herein was solemnized on 10.02.2019 according to Hindu Rites. The parties cohabited as husband and wife.However, due to temperamental differences, they started living separately since 20.03.2020.

¶15

VANDANA 2021.12.23 21:43 I attest to the accuracy of this order

¶16

Having failed to reconciliate, despite efforts, the parties filed a joint petition for dissolution of their marriage by way of mutual consent, under Section 13-B of HMA before the Family Court. All the disputes pertaining to their matrimonial life have already been amicably settled between the parties. At the time of first motion hearing of the case on 23.07.2021, their statements were also recorded and the case was adjourned to 09.02.2022 for second motion hearing.

¶17

During the interregnum of taking up of the second motion hearing, both the parties moved an application for waiver of statutory period of six months, which has been dismissed by the Family Court vide impugned order dated 30.09.2021 (Annexure P-3). Hence the instant petition.

¶18

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the Court below has not appreciated the facts and circumstances of the case in the right perspective, while declining waiver of the period of 6 months. Once the parties have amicably consented to part their ways, they cannot be forced to wait for another six months, is the contention. Counsel relies on judgment rendered by Supreme Court in case titled as “Amardeep Singh v. Harveen Kaur (supra)”, to contend that given the peculiar circumstances of the case, both the petitioners ought to have been exempted from the period of six months for recording their second statement. The joint application filed by them ought to have been allowed in terms of the judgment, ibid.

¶19

Learned counsel also relies on judgments of the Supreme Court in case titled as Soni Kumari Vs. Deepak Kumar decided on 16.09.2015 reported as 2016 (1) R.C.R. (Civil) 52 as well as by this Court in case titled as Mandeep Kaur Bajwa Vs. Chetanjeet Singh Randhawa (FAO-M-3012014 decided on 07.01.2015) .

¶20

VANDANA 2021.12.23 21:43 I attest to the accuracy of this order

¶21

Having personally interacted with the parties who ispresent in person, I am of the view that parties are well aware of their rights. They have very consciously taken steps to mutually part ways in the interest of better future and a happier disposition in life. In the premise, no useful purpose would be served to unnecessarily force them to wait for six months, particularly, when the said wait may turn out to be adversarial qua the future prospects of the co-petitioner wife, with whom as already noted I have interacted and on a Court query she has confidently stood by her first motion. In her own better interest, she has thus consciously chosen to take divorce and even otherwise her marriage is irretrievably broken down.

¶22

No useful purpose would be served to continue in such a marriage. The co-petitioner husband also endorses her views and has given his consent for grant of mutual divorce by dissolving the marriage. Both of them seem to have settled their disputes without any duress or pressure with a tranquil state of mental dispensation.

¶23

Keeping in view the averments made in the petition and in view of the ratio in Amardeep Singh’ case (supra), the approach adopted by the Court below in the present case, to insist waiting period of six months for second motion, was thus uncalled for. The marriage between the parties has irretrievably broken. They have decided to part their ways amicably. Opportunity to live their lives in the manner they like, cannot be denied. In the peculiar facts herein, insisting to wait to another six months would result in adding to their woes.

¶24

Consequently, the revision petition is allowed and order dated 30.09.2021 (Annexure P-3) is set-aside. The Principal Judge, Family Court, Panchkula, shall entertain the joint petition filed by the petitioners under

¶25

VANDANA 2021.12.23 21:43 I attest to the accuracy of this order

¶26

Section 13-B of HMA by waiving off six months period and proceed with the petition by recording respective statements of parties and dispose of the petition on merits, in accordance with law. It is expected of the Family Court to take up the matter on an application moved by the parties along with copy

¶27

of this order.

¶28

21.12.2021 (ARUN MONGA) vandana JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No

¶29

VANDANA 2021.12.23 21:43 I attest to the accuracy of this order

Mehak Chauhan v. Abhinav Sharma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mehak Chauhan v. Abhinav Sharma

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

Ashwani Kumar Vs Kulwant Singh

Anand Rawal Vs State of Haryana and Others

Ram Saran and Anr. Vs Gram Panchayayt Jatthlana

Ram Kishan Vs Renu Mehta and Another

Manika Rani Vs State of Haryana and Another

Nirmala and Others Vs Harpal