Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Judges
Acts
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Judges
Acts
Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

The appellant filed this appeal against the judgment and decree dated 26.6.2000 of the A.D.J., Biora, District Ratlam in Civil Suit No. 14A/99, which dismissed the appellant's application under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act for a decree of divorce. On notice of final hearing the respondent appeared and reconciliation was attempted but failed. During the pendency of the appeal, on 27.3.2001 both parties jointly filed I.A. No. 1090/2001 under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking a decree of divorce by mutual consent. The court recorded the parties' statements and considered the application.

Legal Issues Presented

  1. Whether the joint application under Section 13B(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act for dissolution of marriage by mutual consent should be allowed.
  2. Whether the statutory requirement to keep the application pending for six months under Section 13B(2) should be dispensed with in the circumstances of this case.

Arguments of the Parties

Parties' Joint Statements

  • Both parties stated they were not prepared to live together as husband and wife and sought dissolution of the marriage by mutual consent.
  • The application stated the minor daughter Neethu (about three years old) was living with her maternal grandmother and, as per the application, "under the guardianship of the non-applicant shall live with the appellant Preetha Nair."
  • The application provided that on attaining the age of five years the daughter Neethu shall be permitted to live with the respondent father for one month each year; the respondent would take Neethu from her place of residence and, after the month, arrange her return.
  • The applicants agreed that the appellant shall not claim any amount from the respondent by way of maintenance or refund of dowry articles.
  • It was stated that the parties have been living separately for the last two years.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court recorded and reviewed the parties' statements and found that they were not willing to live together and sought dissolution by mutual consent. Noting that the parties had been living separately for two years and that reconciliation did not appear possible, the court concluded it was unnecessary to keep the application pending for six months as contemplated by Section 13B(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act. On this basis the court allowed the application under Section 13B(1) and set aside the trial court's impugned judgment and decree.

Holding and Implications

The application under Section 13B(1) was allowed and a decree for dissolution of the marriage by mutual consent was passed; the impugned judgment and decree of the Trial Court were set aside.

Direct consequences: the marriage is dissolved by mutual consent; the parties are to bear their own costs of the appeal; counsel fee of Rs. 500/- is fixed for each party on certificate; a decree is to be drawn up accordingly. No broader precedent or additional legal implications are discussed in the opinion.

    Smt. Preetha Nair v. Gopkumar

    1. Appellant-petitioner has directed this appeal against the judgment and the decree dated 26.6.2000 passed by A.D.J., Biora, District Ratlam in Civil Suit No. 14A/99, thereby dismissing the application filed on behalf of the appellant under the provisions of Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act for grant of decree of divorce against the respondent.

    2. On appearance of the respondent on service of notice of final hearing of this appeal, an effort was made for reconciliation between the parties. But due to the differences existing between the parties, the reconciliation was not possible.

    3. During the pendency of this appeal, on 27.3.2001, both appellant and the respondent jointly filed I.A. No. 1090/2001 under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act for grant of decree of divorce on mutual consent as contemplated under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act. On filing the aforesaid application, the statements of the parties have been recorded by this Court and on perusal of the statements it was found that the parties are not prepared to leave together as husband and wife and they want dissolution of the marriage on consent.

    4. It is stated in the application that the minor daughter Neethu aged about three years at this stage living with her maternal grand mother and under the guardianship of the non-applicant shall live with the appellant Preetha Nair and on attaining the age of five years daughter Neethu shall be permitted to live along with the respondent father for a period of one month during every year. The respondent shall take Neethu from the place of her residence and on completion of the period of one month also make arrangement for sending her to the place of her residence. It is also stated in the application that the applicant shall not claim any amount from the respondent by way of maintenance or refund of dowry articles. From the statements of the parties, it emerged that they are living separately since last two years and they do not want to live together as husband and wife. In view of the facts and circumstances emerging from the statements of the parties, the application, I.A. No. 1090/2001 deserves to be allowed.

    5. As the parties are living separately since last two years and there appears no possibility of reconciliation between the parties, I do not consider it necessary to keep this application pending for a period of six months as provided under Section 13B(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act.

    6. Consequently, the application filed on behalf of the parties under Section 13B(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act for decree of dissolution of marriage by mutual consent, is allowed and in the result the impugned judgment and decree of the Trial Court is set aside and instead decree for dissolution of the marriage by mutual consent is passed under the provisions of Section 13B(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act. The parties are left to bear their own costs of this appeal. Counsel fee Rs. 500/- is fixed for each of the parties on certificate. A decree be drawn up accordingly.

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.

    Comments

    Smt. Preetha Nair v. Gopkumar
    (Mar 29, 2001)