Punjab-Haryana High Court
Bhupinder Singh vs Amandeep Kaur Through Simarpreet ... on 12 October, 2021
Sr. No. 115
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CR No.2287-2021
Date of decision: 12.10.2021
Bhupinder Singh Petitioner No.1
And
Amandeep Kaur Petitioner No.2
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA
Mr. Sahil Goel, Advocate,
Present:
for both the petitioners along with
Petitioners in person.
(Presence marked through video conference).
***
ARUN MONGA, J. (ORAL)
This is a joint petition filed by both husband and wife under
Article 227 of Constitution of India seeking to set aside an order dated
08.09.2021 (Annexure P-6), passed by Learned Principal Judge, Family
Court, Kharar whereby, application for waiver of statutory period of 06
months filed in apetition under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act,
1955 has been dismissed. Reliance is placed on the guidelines laid down by
Supreme Court in case titled as "Amardeep Singh v. Harveen Kaur, 2017
(8) SCC 746".
2. Succinctly, brief facts of the case first. Marriage of the parties
herein was solemnized on 18.03.2019 at village Singa Devi, Tehsil Kharar,
District Mohali according to Sikh Rites. The parties cohabited as husband
and wife.However, due to temperamental differences, they started living
separately since 18.05.2019.
3. Having failed to reconciliate, despite efforts, the parties filed a joint
petition for dissolution of their marriage by way of mutual consent, under
1 of 4
Section 13-B of HMA before the Family Court. All the disputes pertaining
to their matrimonial life have already been amicably settled between the
parties. At the time of first motion hearing of the case on 04.08.2021, their
statements were also recorded and the case was adjourned for second motion
hearing.
4. During the interregnum of taking up of the second motion
hearing, both the parties moved an application for waiver of statutory period
of six months, which has been dismissed by the Family Court vide impugned
order dated 08.09.2021 (Annexure P-6).
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the Court
below has not appreciated the facts and circumstances of the case in the right
perspective, while declining waiver of the period of 6 months. Once the
parties have amicably consented to part their ways, they cannot be forced to
wait for another six months, is the contention. Counsel relies on judgment
rendered by Supreme Court in case titled as "Amardeep Singh v. Harveen
Kaur (supra)", to contend that given the peculiar circumstances of the case,
both the petitioners ought to have been exempted from the period of six
months for recording their second statement. The joint application filed by
them ought to have been allowed in terms of the judgment, ibid.
6. having personally interacted with the parties through video
conference, I am of the view that parties are well aware of their rights and
they have very consciously taken steps to mutually part ways in the interest
of better future and a happier disposition in life.In the premise, no useful
purpose would be served to unnecessarily force them to wait for six months,
particularly when the said wait may turn out to be adversarial qua the future
prospects of the co-petitioner wife, with whom as already noted I have
2 of 4
interacted and on a Court query she has confidently stood by her first
motion. Shereiterates the samestand in person even today as taken in the first
motion and states that she had also duly authorized power of attorney to do
the needful on her behalf before the family court since she is currently based
in Canada.
7. In view of her inabilityto travel due to flight restrictions caused
by Covid pandemic, she states that she is unable to personally travel. Wife
further states that, in any case,since the grant of her Permanent Residence
Status by the Immigration Authorities in Canada is on the conditionthat
same to be given only if she is single/not married.In her own better interest,
she has thus consciously chosen to take divorce and even otherwise her
marriage is irretrievably broken down. No useful purpose would be served to
continue in such a marriage. The co-petitioner husband also endorses her
views and has given his consent for grant of mutual divorce by dissolving
the marriage.Both of them seem to have settled their disputes without any
duress or pressure with a tranquil state of mental dispensation.
8. Keeping in view the averments made in the petition and in view
of the ratio in Amardeep Singh' case (supra), the approach adopted by the
Court below in the present case, to insist waiting period of six months for
second motion, was thus uncalled for. The marriage between the parties has
irretrievably broken. They have decided to part their ways amicably.
Opportunity to live their lives in the manner they like, cannot be denied. In
the peculiar facts herein, insisting to wait to another six months would result
in adding to their woes.
9. Consequently, the revision petition is allowed and order dated
08.09.2021 (Annexure P-6) is set-aside. The Principal Judge, Family Court,
3 of 4
Kharar, shall entertain the joint petition filed by the petitioners under Section
13-B of HMA by waiving off six months period and proceed with the
petition by recording respective statements of parties and dispose of the
petition on merits, in accordance with law. It is expected of the Family Court
to take up the matter on an application moved by the parties along with copy
of this order.
10. Partiesare also at liberty to appear in person or through 'Power of
Attorney'before the Family Court by filing an appropriate application to
request taking up of their case.
11. The instant order be given dasti to learned counsel for the
petitioners under the signatures of Bench Secretary of this Court.
12.10.2021 (ARUN MONGA)
vandana JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
4 of 4
