Priyanka Rathore vs Nitin Rathroe
2023 Latest Caselaw 4555 MP

                                                             1
                           IN     THE       HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                  AT INDORE
                                                  BEFORE
                           HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
                                                     &
                              HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRAKASH CHANDRA GUPTA
                                               ON THE 23 rd OF MARCH, 2023
                                               FIRST APPEAL No. 818 of 2021

                          BETWEEN:-
                          PRIYANKA RATHORE W/O NITIN RATHORE, AGED
                          ABOUT 35 YEARS, OCCUPATION: NIL, R/O VILL-
                          UMARBAN    TEH. MANAWAR, DISTRICT DHAR
                          (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                        .....APPELLANT
                          (PRESENT IN PERSON )

                          AND
                          NITIN RATHROE S/O RAMESHCHANDRA RATHORE,
                          AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, OCCUPATION: NIL 24,
                          HANUMAN GALI BAGLI TEH. BAGLI, DISTRICT DEWAS
                          (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                      .....RESPONDENT
                          (PRESENT IN PERSON)

                                T h is appeal coming on for order this day, JUSTICE SUSHRUT

                          ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI passed the following:
                                                              ORDER

Due to strike called by the M.P. State Bar Council, the Advocates are abstaining from Court work.

Heard on IA No. 1951/2023, an application under Section 13(b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 ( in short... "of the Act") The present appeal has been filed by the appellant (wife) being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 04.10.2021 passed by the Second Additional Signature Not Verified Signed by: VARSHA DUBEY Signing time: 3/24/2023 2:18:24 PM

District Judge, Manawar, District Dhar, in RCS-HM No. 14/2019, whereby the petition seeking divorce under Section 13 (1) of the Act has been rejected.

The aforesaid joint application has been filed by the parties under Section 13 (B) of the Act for waiving off the cooling period in the light of judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Amardeep Singh Vs. Harveen Kaur, reported in AIR 2017 SC 4417.

The appellant submitted that she and her husband got married as per the Hindu Rights and Customs on 18.04.2008. Out of the said wedlock, they are having a daughter named Kanupriya. During pendency of present appeal, the appellant and the respondent have decided to obtain a decree of divorce,

therefore, they have filed the joint application for grant of divorce by mutual consent. It is stated that since both of them have decided to seek divorce and to live separately, therefore, pendency of the divorce petition for more than six months would seriously affect the future of both the appellant and the respondent. Therefore, it is prayed that in the light of the Apex Court judgment in the case of Amardeep Singh Vs. Harveen Kaur(s), the cooling period of 6 months may be waived of. It is further stated that lot of efforts have been made by both the parties as well as this Court to dissolve the dispute amicably but the same has failed and respondent and appellant are adamant to live separately and there is no possibility of compromise between the parties in future.

The apex Court in the case of Amardeep Singh Vs. Harveen Kaur(s) has held as under:-

"Applying the above to the present petition, we are of the view that 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:

Signature Not Verified Signed by: VARSHA DUBEY Signing time: 3/24/2023 2:18:24 PM

i) The statutory period of six months specified in Section 13 B(2), in addition to the statutory period of one year under Section 13B(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 XXXIIA Rule 3 CPC/Section 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." In view of the above judgment passed by the Apex Court and taking into consideration the fact that now the parties have amicably settled the matter and decided to live separately and there are no chances of any settlement between them, hence, the Cooling period of 6 months is also waived off.

On the basis of aforesaid, the application filed by both the parties under Section 13(B) of the Act is allowed. The impugned judgment and decree dated 04.10.2021, passed by the Trial Court is set aside and following decree is passed:-

i.The marriage solemnized between the appellant/wife and

respondent/husband is dissolved.

No order as to costs.

Let a decree be drawn accordingly.

(S. A. DHARMADHIKARI) (PRAKASH CHANDRA GUPTA) Signature Not Verified Signed by: VARSHA DUBEY Signing time: 3/24/2023 2:18:24 PM

JUDGE JUDGE VD

Signature Not Verified Signed by: VARSHA DUBEY Signing time: 3/24/2023 2:18:24 PM