Chattisgarh High Court
Abhinav Shrivastava vs Smt. Aakanksha Shrivastava on 23 February, 2022
-1-
NAFR
HIGH COURT of CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
WP227 No. 55 of 2022
Abhinav Shrivastava S/o Shri Prabhu Kumar Aged About 37 Years R/o
21/421, Hanuman Nagar, Titurdih, Ward No. 21, Durg, Tahsil And District
Durg Chhattisgarh.
---- Petitioner
Versus
Smt. Aakanksha Shrivastava W/o Abhinav Shrivastava, Aged About 30
Years R/o Near Hanuman Mandir District Durg (C.G.). Present R/o
Mahurbandpara, Kanker, District Kanker Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondent
For Petitioner : Shri Pawan Kumar Kashyap, Advocate
For Respondent : None appears
S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge
Order On Board
23/02/2022
1. None appears for the respondent though served.
2. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner/applicant No.2 (husband),
under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, seeking following
reliefs:-
"10.1 That, this Hon'ble court, may kindly call
for the entire record in relates to the case of
the petitioner.
10.2. That, this Hon'ble Court, may kindly be
pleased to issue a writ/or writs/order/or
orders/ to direct the learned Family Court,
Uttar Bastar, kanker, to decide the Civil Suit
No.43-A/2021, title as Smt. Aakanksha
Shrivastava Vs. Abhinav Shrivastava, in
which petitioner and respondent seeking
mutual divorce, within a period of one month,
before by adjusting the next date given on
14.06.2022, in the ends of justice.
10.3. That, any other relief, this Hon'ble
Court, deem fit and proper may also kindly
be granted to the petitioner, in the interest of
justice."
3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the petitioner and
respondent have moved joint application under Section 13-B of the
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short "the Act") for mutual divorce.
But, even after lapse of long time since the date of filing of
application under Section 13-B of the Act, learned Judge, Family
Court, Uttar Bastar Kanker is not passing any judgment and decree
granting divorce by dissolution of marriage dated 09.05.2017. He
submits that a direction may be issued to learned Family Court to
decide the application and pass decree of divorce by dissolving the
marriage between the petitioner and respondent within a period of
one month.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the
relevant documents placed on record.
5. To appreciate the submission of learned counsel for petitioner, I
find it appropriate to extract the provision of Section 13-B of the
Hindu Marriage Act, which is as under :-
"13 B Divorce by mutual consent. (1)
Subject to the provisions of this Act a petition
for dissolution of marriage by a decree of
divorce may be presented to the district court
by both the parties to a marriage together,
whether such marriage was solemnised
before or after the commencement of the
Marriage Laws (Amendment) Act, 1976 (68 of
1976)*, on the ground that they have been
living separately for a period of one year or
more, that they have not been able to live
together and that they have mutually agreed
that the marriage should be dissolved.
(2) On the motion of both the parties made
not earlier than six months after the date of
the presentation of the petition referred to in
sub-section (1) and not later than eighteen
months after the said date, if the petition is
not withdrawn in the meantime, the court
shall, on being satisfied, after hearing the
parties and after making such inquiry as it
thinks fit, that a marriage has been
solemnised and that the averments in the
petition are true, pass a decree of divorce
declaring the marriage to be dissolved with
effect from the date of the decree.]"
6. Sub-section (2) of Section 13-B of the Act envisages that no
order/judgment or decree of divorce declaring marriage to be
dissolved be passed earlier than six months from motion of both
the parties and after making such inquiry and recording satisfaction
of the concerned Court. Admittedly, the petitioner along with
respondent has filed application under Section 13-B of the act on
01.12.2021. The Court after registration of case has fixed the case
for further hearing on 14.06.2022 i.e. after period of six months,
which cannot be said to be erroneous in view of specific provision
under sub-section (2) of Section 13-B of the Act. The statute
provides six months cooling period to the parties and to provide
them an opportunity to rethink on their decision and to take
appropriate steps if after filing of application, at some later point of
time, they come to the conclusion that their decision was not
correct. When the statute provides specific time of not considering
the application under Section 13-B of the Act and passing of
judgment/order on it only after six months from the date of filing of
application/motion of both the parties, I do not find any infirmity in
the order passed by learned Family Court fixing the date for
hearing on the application under Section 13-B of the Act, after six
months from its registration. The relief sought for by the petitioner
being contrary to the provision under Section 13-B (2) of the Act
cannot be granted.
7. The petition being devoid of substance is liable to be and is hereby
dismissed.
Sd/-/----/-/-
(Parth Prateem Sahu)
Judge
Praveen
