Madhya Pradesh High Court
Swati Singh Parmar vs Vinay Pratap Singh on 24 March, 2021
Author: Anjuli Palo
1 MP-960-2021
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
MP-960-2021
(SWATI SINGH PARMAR Vs VINAY PRATAP SINGH)
2
Jabalpur, Dated : 24-03-2021
Shri Anvesh Shrivastava, counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Jubin Prasad, counsel for the respondent.
Heard finally with the consent of learned counsel for the parties.
This petition has been filed by the petitioner being aggrieved by the
order Annexure P-1 dated 23.2.2021 passed by the Principal Judge, Family
Court, Bhopal in Case No. RCS-HM/207/2021 whereby the application filed
by the petitioner seeking waiver of period of six months as provided in sub-
section 2 of Section 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 has been rejected.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the present case, the
parties are claiming the divorce with mutual consent, therefore, in the light of
the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Amardeep Singh Vs.
Harveen Kaur reported in (2017) 8 SCC 746, the period of six months as
provided under Section 13-B(2) may be waived.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the
impugned order. The Supreme Court in the case of Amardeep Singh Vs.
Harveen Kaur (supra) has observed as under:
"Where the court dealing with a matter is satisfied
that a case is made out to waive the statutory period
under Section 13-B(2), it can do so after considering the
following :
(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;
(ii) all efforts for mediation/conciliation including
efforts in terms of Order 32-A Rule 3 CPC/Section
2 MP-960-2021
23(2) of the Act/Section 9 of the Family Courts Act to
reunite the parties have failed and there is no likelihood
of success in that direction by any further efforts;
(iii) the parties have genuinely settled their
differences including alimony, custody of child or any
other pending issues between the parties;
(iv) the waiting period will only prolong their
agony."
The supreme Court has further observed that 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. Similar view
has been taken by a Coordinate Bench of this Court at Indore in the order
dated 9.9.2020 passed in M.P. No. 2355/2020 (Madhur Kumawat Vs.
Abhinav Kumawat).
Having regarding to the facts which are pointed out by the learned
counsel for the parties and in the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court
in Amardeep Singh (supra) and the order dated 9.9.2020 passed by Indore
Bench of this Court in M.P. No. 2355/2020, this Court is of the opinion that
the aforesaid conditions are satisfied in the matter. Since parties have applied
for mutual consent in the present case, the waiting period at this stage will
only prolong the agony of the parties.
In view of the aforesaid, this petition is allowed. The impugned order is
set aside. The parties are at liberty to file appropriate application before the
trial Court and the trial Court is directed to consider the same without any
unnecessary delay. The parties are directed to appear before the trial Court on
6.4.2021.
Disposed of accordingly.
3 MP-960-2021
(SMT. ANJULI PALO)
JUDGE
PB
Digitally signed by
PRADYUMNA BARVE
Date: 2021.03.24 18:13:24
+05'30'
