Allowed

Rohit Ralhan v. Shri Madhuri Bhatia

Rajasthan HC18 May 2023CW/6798/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition filed by the petitioner challenging the Family Court's rejection of a joint application for waiver of the six-month waiting period under Section 13-B(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act. Relying on Amardeep Singh, the court found the conditions for waiver met, set aside the impugned order, and directed the lower court to hear the second motion.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order is set aside and the parties' application for waiver of the six-month period under Section 13-B(2) is allowed.

Rohit Ralhan Vs Shri Madhuri Bhatia — Matrimonial and Divorce | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023/RJJD/016077]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6798/2023

¶4

Rohit Ralhan S/o Shri Sunil Kumar Ralhan, Aged About 35 Years, Residing At B-555 Ground Floor, Greenfields Colony, Faridabad , Haryana.

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

Shri Madhuri Bhatia W/o Shri Rohit Ralhan, Residing At 113, Malviya Nagar, Golf Course Area, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Petitioner(s) : Dr. Mohit Singhvi For Respondent(s) : Mrs. Harveer Sidhu

¶10

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

¶11

Order

¶12

18/05/2023

¶13

This writ petition has been preferred on behalf of the petitioner being aggrieved with the order dated 06.05.2023 passed by the Family Court No.1, Jodhpur (for short ‘the Court below’) in Suit No.298/2023, whereby the joint application filed by the petitioner and the respondent (hereinafter “parties”) for waiver of six months period prescribed under Section 13-B(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act of 1955’) has been dismissed.

¶14

Mrs. Harveer Sidhu, learned counsel for the respondent, submitted that the respondent is also aggrieved with the order impugned and this writ petition has been filed with the consent of the respondent. Learned counsel submitted that he she no objection if the relief prayed for in this writ petition is granted.

[2023/RJJD/016077]

[CW-6798/2023]

(2 of 5)

Brief facts of the case are that the marriage of the parties was solemnized as per Hindu customs on 29.01.2015 at Faridabad. It appears that soon after the marriage, the relations of the parties became strained and both of them have been residing separately from last three years i.e. 30.07.2020.

¶19

Despite the best efforts of the parties to restore conjugal relations and in spite of regular counselling by their near relatives, the matrimonial dispute between them could not be settled, the relations between the parties have become sour and it is impossible for both of them to continue the marriage, and for which, the respective families have also extended their consent, and therefore the parties jointly filed an application under Section 13-B of the Act of 1955 seeking divorce by mutual consent before the court below on 18.01.2023.

¶20

In the meantime, the parties preferred a joint application praying for waiver of six months’ statutory period specified under Section 13-B(2) of the Act of 1955. Arguments on the said application were heard and the court below dismissed the said application vide its order dated 06.05.2023.

¶21

Being aggrieved with order dated 06.05.2023, the present writ petition has been preferred before this Court.

¶22

Learned counsel for the parties have submitted that both, the petitioner and the respondent are educated persons and both of them have decided to end their marriage by mutual consent after due deliberations. It is also submitted that the decision by the parties to end their marriage has not been taken in a hurry

¶23

(3 of 5) [CW-6798/2023]

¶24

[2023/RJJD/016077]

¶25

and reconciliation between the parties is highly unlikely. It is further submitted that the conditions set out in the case of Amardeep Singh Vs. Harveen Kaur, reported in (2017) 8 SCC 746 , under which statutory period of six months, as specified under Section 13-B(2) of the Act of 1955, can be waived are fulfilled in the present case and the court below has erred in refusing waiver of the six months’ statutory period.

¶26

Learned counsel for the parties have therefore jointly prayed that the order impugned be set aside and the court below be directed to condone or waive the statutory period specified under Section 13-B(2) of the Act of 1955.

¶27

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order.

¶28

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Amardeep Singh’s case (supra) has held as under :-

¶29

“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 :

¶30

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;

¶31

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

[2023/RJJD/016077]

[CW-6798/2023]

(4 of 5)

Act to reunite the parties have failed and there is no likelihood of success in that direction by any further efforts;

¶36

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

¶37

iv) the waiting period will only prolong their agony.

¶38

The waiver application can be filed one week after the first motion giving reasons for the prayer for waiver. If the above conditions are satisfied, the waiver of the waiting period for the second motion will be in the discretion of the court concerned.

¶39

Since we are of the view that the period mentioned in Section 13-B(2) is not mandatory but directory, it will be open to the Court to exercise its discretion in the facts and circumstances of each case where there is no possibility of parties resuming cohabitation and there are chances of alternative rehabilitation.”

¶40

After taking into consideration the facts of the present case, I am of the opinion that the conditions set out by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Amardeep Singh’s case (supra) are fulfilled in the present case.

¶41

In light of the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the fact that the parties are sufficiently educated and are aware of their rights and have mutually decided to end their matrimony finding no hope/chance of reconciliation, I am of the opinion that their application for waiver of the statutory period of

(5 of 5)

[2023/RJJD/016077]

[CW-6798/2023]

six months specified under Section 13-B(2) of the Act of 1955 deserves acceptance.

¶46

Hence, this writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 06.05.2023 passed by the Court below is set aside and their application filed by the parties for waiver of the statutory period of six months specified under Section 13-B(2) of the Act of 1955 is, hereby allowed. The statutory period of six months specified under Section 13-B(2) of the Act of 1955 is hereby waived in exercise of extraordinary powers available to this Court by virtue of Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶47

The parties are directed to remain present before the learned trial court for the second motion on 24.05.2023. The learned trial court shall pass the order on the same day and shall ensure that the Demand Draft in question is handed over to the respondent in the court itself, strictly in accordance with law.

¶48

All pending applications stand disposed of.

¶49

(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.

¶50

110-Zeeshan

Rohit Ralhan v. Shri Madhuri Bhatia

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rohit Ralhan v. Shri Madhuri Bhatia

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

Shakuntala Devi Vs Heera Lal Parihar

Smt. Chanchal Devi Vs Secretary (Revenue Department)

Sanjay Meena Vs Jodhpur National University

Vimla Devi Vs State of Rajasthan

Shivprakash Vs Jaswant

Sugan Singh Vs State of Rajasthan