Nikhil Kumar v. Rupali Kumar ., Supreme Court Of India, Judgment, Law, casemine.com

Factual and Procedural Background

The appellant–husband and the respondent–wife were married on 7 February 2011 according to customary rites. According to their joint petition, they have never been able to live together satisfactorily and have resided separately for most of the last five years. On 29 March 2016 they filed HMA No. 272 of 2016 before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Tis Hazari, Delhi, seeking dissolution of their marriage by mutual consent under Section 13-B(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The Family Court recorded the first motion on 1 April 2016 and scheduled the statutory second motion for October 2016, six months later.

Subsequently, the respondent planned to leave for New York on 29 April 2016 in search of employment and a fresh start. Because her return to India within six months was unlikely, the appellant approached the Supreme Court by special leave under Article 136 of the Constitution and sought exercise of the Court’s plenary power under Article 142 to waive the six-month cooling-off period mandated by Section 13-B(2) HMA.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant’s Arguments

The statutory six-month period under Section 13-B(2) should be dispensed with because both parties have been separated since 2011 and their marriage has irretrievably broken down.

The respondent’s imminent relocation to New York makes it practically impossible to complete the second motion before the Family Court.

The Supreme Court should invoke Article 142 to do complete justice and dissolve the marriage forthwith.

Respondent’s Arguments

She concurs that the marriage has failed from the outset and supports immediate dissolution.

An affidavit filed before the Court confirms that her decision is voluntary, informed, and free from coercion.

Because she will be abroad for an indeterminate period, returning to India for the second motion is infeasible.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court personally interacted with both spouses, noted their educational backgrounds (both graduates; the husband a senior manager born in 1984 and the wife born in 1982), and satisfied itself that the decision to dissolve the marriage was taken consciously and without undue influence. Emphasising the “peculiar situation” created by the respondent’s imminent departure and the parties’ long-standing separation, the Court held that adherence to the six-month cooling-off period would only perpetuate hardship without serving any meaningful purpose. Accordingly, to “do complete justice” under Article 142, the Court decided to waive the statutory waiting period.

Holding and Implications

The appeal was allowed; the six-month waiting period under Section 13-B(2) HMA was waived and the marriage was dissolved with immediate effect.

Direct consequences: the Family Court’s pending matter is concluded, and the Registry must communicate the Supreme Court’s judgment forthwith. No costs were awarded. Broader implications: the judgment reaffirms that, in exceptional circumstances, the Supreme Court may invoke Article 142 to bypass statutory procedural requirements in matrimonial matters; however, the decision is confined to the peculiar facts of this case and sets no general rule automatically waiving the cooling-off period.

Nikhil Kumar v. Rupali Kumar .

Kurian Joseph, J.— Leave granted. The appellant and the respondent have filed the petition under Section 13-B(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 before the Family Court (Principal Judge, Family Court, Tis Hazari District Courts), Delhi. The parties were married on 7-2-2011 according to the customary rights. It is submitted that they have not been able to work out their marriage as husband and wife since day one. For the last around five years, most of the time they have been living separately and their marriage reached a breaking point more than a year back. Both the parties, after giving serious thought on the entire consequences of their decision, have taken a conscious decision to part and accordingly they have filed a petition before the Family Court for divorce on mutual consent on 29-3-2016. The Family Court granted the first motion on 1-4-2016 and now, the matter is posted in the month of October 2016.

2. The respondent has made a travel plan to move to New York on 29-4-2016 seeking a job and resettlement in life, after a long period of traumatic experiences of her married life as stated in the affidavit.

3. In the above circumstances, the appellant has filed the present appeal praying for waving the six months' waiting period required under Section 13-B(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, invoking our jurisdiction under Article 136 read with Article 142 of the Constitution of India.

4. The respondent has appeared in person. She was directed to file an affidavit before this Court. The respondent in the affidavit has endorsed the submission that they were not happy ever since their marriage in 2011. It is stated that with the set-back of a broken marriage, the respondent needs a change in environment and thus, she has proposed to move to New York and it would be difficult for her to get back to India after six months or even in the near future. It is further stated that both of them have realised the consequences of their decision and they have taken the decision out of their free will and without any undue influence or coercion.

5. Both the parties have appeared before the Court. The appellant was born in the year 1984, and is a graduate in commerce. He is working as senior manager in a private firm. The respondent was born in the year 1982 and she also is a graduate.

6. The respondent is scheduled to leave the country by 29-4-2016 and it is not possible for her to return to India within six months or in the near future, it is submitted.

7. Having regard to the educational background of the appellant as well as the respondent, and the entire facts and circumstances, we feel that it is a very peculiar situation where this Court should invoke its jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India for doing complete justice between the parties. We do so.

8. In the above circumstances, HMA No. 272 of 2016 filed on 29-3-2016 before the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Tis Hazari District Courts, Delhi under Section 13-B(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 is allowed. The statutory period of six months' is waived and the marriage between the parties is dissolved.

9. The Registry is directed to communicate a copy of this judgment to the Family Court forthwith. The appeal is allowed as above. No order as to costs.

Civil Appeal No. 4490 of 2016, decided on April 27, 2016

Nikhil Kumar v. Rupali Kumar .

Factual and Procedural Background

Legal Issues Presented

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant’s Arguments

Respondent’s Arguments

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

Holding and Implications

Nikhil Kumar v. Rupali Kumar .

Comments