Z.K Saiyed, J.:— The present petition under Articles 14, 19, 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is filed by the petitioner with the following prayers.
(A) That the Hon'ble court be pleased to admit and allow this Special Civil Application.
(B) Your Lordship may be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari and/or other appropriate writ, order or direction for quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 08/07/2016 passed by the Family Court No. 2 in Family Suit No. 903/20016 at Annexure: D and order to waive the statutory period.
2. The facts of the present case are that the petitioner and respondent are working in same institution had love affair with each other. The petitioner and respondent had got married on 05.07.2006 as per the Hindu Rituals and Customs. The marriage was registered in Registrar Office on 05.08.2006 and they started living happy marriage life in joint family. After sometime, the dispute started cropping up between them and the respondent no. 1 left matrimonial home. It is submitted that several efforts were made by the relatives and friends for settle the dispute between the petitioner and respondent, but they are not ready to live as husband and wife.
3. The respondent no. 1 had filed Family Suit No. 1654 of 2014 under section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act before the Family Court Ahmedabad against the petitioner for divorce and the petitioner had filed her written statement. During the pendency of the aforesaid suit, another Family Suit No. 903/2016 came to be filed by both the parties for divorce with mutual consent under section 13(B) of the Hindu Marriage Act before the Family Court, Ahmedabad. In the said suit being Family Suit no. 903/2016, an application below Exhibit 11 is preferred for waiving statutory period of six months, which came to be rejected by the learned Judge, Family Court No. 2 at Ahmedabad vide order dated 8.7.2016 Against the said order, the present petition is filed.
4. Heard learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner.
5. Learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the impugned order dated 8.7.2016 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court No. 2, Ahmedabad is contrary to law and illegal. He submits that the learned Judge of the Family Court has not properly considered the provision of section 13(B) of the Hindu Marriage Act. He submits that the learned Judge has failed to examine the case of the petitioner that earlier proceeding under section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act is pending before the Family Court, the said matter is kept for hearing on 11.08.2016 and no reason assigned by the Court below. He further submits that the order dated 8.7.2016 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court No. 2, Ahmedabad below application Exhibit 11 in Family Suit No. 903/2016 may be quashed and set aside and may be waived the statutory period.
6. I have gone through the averments made in the petition and considered the submissions made by the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner. I have also gone through the impugned order passed by the Family Court.
7. This petition pertains to the statutory period, but as per the case discussed by the Family Court in the case decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Anil Kumar Jain v. Maya Jain rendered in Civil Appeal No. 5952/2009 and in the case of Manish Goel v. Rohini Goel. reported in (2010) 4 SCC 393, the Hon'ble Supreme Court clearly held that the Civil Court or the High Court cannot curtail the statutory waiting period of six months. Therefore, the Family Court has rightly observed in paragraph nos. 6 and 7, which read as under:
“6. Here, I would like to refer to the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter between Anil Kumar Jain v. Maya Jain in Civil Appeal No. 5952 of 2009 (arising out Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 14361/2007) wherein it is held that only the Supreme Court, by exercising its extraordinary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, can grant relief to the parties without even waiting for the statutory period of six months stipulated in Section 13(B) of the Act. Neither the civil courts nor even the High Courts can pass orders before the periods prescribed under the relevant provisions of the Act.
7. I would further like to refer to the case of Jigneshkumar Dilipbhai Patel v. Principal Senior Civil Court reported in [2014 (1)] 55(1) GLR 566 wherein Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat has also followed the above said principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Anil Kumar Jain v. Maya Jain (supra) and Manish Goel v. Rohini Goel. reported in (2010) 4 SCC 393 that neither the Civil Courts nor the Hon'ble High Court can pass order to curtail the statutory waiting period of six months as prescribed under Section 13(B)(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act.”
8. From the impugned order, it appears that the learned Judge of the Family Court has not committed any error while passing the order. I am fully agreement with the I findings recorded by the Court below. I do not find any substance in the present petition and the same deserves to be dismissed. Hence, the present petition is dismissed.
Comments