Punjab-Haryana High Court
Davinder Singh vs Gulnaz Kaur on 27 October, 2021
Sr. No. 113
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CR No.1845-2021
Date of decision: 27.10.2021
Davinder Singh Petitioner No.1
And
Gulnaz Kaur Petitioner No.2
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA
Present: Mr. Judgepreet Singh Warring, Advocate,
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
16.08.2021, passed by Learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bathinda
whereby, application for waiver of statutory period of 06 months filed in
a petition 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 vs. Harveen Kaur, 2017 (8)
SCC 746".
2. Marriage of the parties herein was solemnized on
05.09.2017 at Bathinda. The parties cohabited as husband and wife on
for few months, where after wife left for Canada . Later, due to
1 of 4
temperamental differences, they decided to separate from eachother
sometime in September, 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 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 28.07.2021, their statements were also recorded and the case was
adjourned for second motion hearing on 01.02.2022.
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 16.08.2021.
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.
2 of 4
6. Having personally interacted with the parties through video
conference, I am of the view that parties are well educated, 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. That apart, petitioner No.1-husband on the one
hand, states that because of his current marital status, he is unable to plan
his future as he intends to move to Australia and is completely at a loss
to plan his movement. While petitioner No.2-wife also states that
marriage is since irretrievably broken, she also intends to move on and
has no plan to relocate to India and her future plans are also on hold due
to forced continuation of her marital status. She submits that due to
COVID-19 restrictions, she is unable to take flight to come to India to
personally pursue her matrimonial proceedings and for the purpose, has
given Special Power of Attorney to her father, who is to join her to live
in Canada but he is currently held up to forciblystay in India due to
pendency of the proceedings before the Family Court.
7. 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. Both of them seem to have
3 of 4
settled their disputes without any duress or pressure with a tranquil state
of mental dispensation.
8. Consequently, the revision petition is allowed and order
dated 16.08.2021 is set-aside. The Principal Judge, Family Court,
Bathinda, 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.
9. Parties are at liberty to appear in person or through 'Power
of Attorney' before the Family Court on 30.11.2021 or any later date.
27.10.2021 (ARUN MONGA)
vandana JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
4 of 4
