Case Summary: Amardeep Singh v. Harveen Kaur (2017) | Divorce by Mutual Consent

Facts of the Case:

• The marriage between Amardeep Singh and Harveen Kaur was solemnized on 16th January 1994, and the couple had two children, born in 1995 and 2003.
• The parties had lived separately since 2008 due to marital disputes, leading to multiple civil and criminal cases.
• On 28th April 2017, they reached a mutual settlement to dissolve their marriage, under which Harveen Kaur was to receive Rs. 2.75 crores as permanent alimony, and the custody of the children was to remain with Amardeep Singh.
• The couple filed for divorce by mutual consent under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. As part of this process, the Family Court in Tis Hazari, New Delhi, recorded their statements on 8th May 2017.
• The couple sought a waiver of the six-month waiting period for filing the second motion for divorce on the ground that they had been living separately for over eight years and that further delay would only hinder their chances of resettlement.

Issue:

Whether the courts can waive the mandatory six-month waiting period stipulated under Section 13B(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, for obtaining a divorce by mutual consent.

Legal Provision Involved:

Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955: This provision allows for divorce by mutual consent.

• Section 13B(1) requires the parties to live separately for one year before filing a petition for divorce by mutual consent.
• Section 13B(2) mandates a six-month cooling-off period between the first and second motions for divorce, to give the parties a chance to reconcile before the decree of divorce is granted.

Key Judgments Referred

• Nikhil Kumar v. Rupali Kumar (Civil Appeal No. 4490 of 2016):  In this case, the Supreme Court waived the six-month waiting period under Article 142 of the Constitution, granting divorce due to the irretrievable breakdown of the marriage.
  
• Manish Goel v. Rohini Goel (AIR 2010 SC 1099): This case established that courts could not waive the statutory six-month period under Section 13B of the Act using Article 142, as it would be against statutory provisions.
  

Arguments:

• The appellant argued that the six-month period under Section 13B(2) was not mandatory and could be waived in exceptional circumstances. Given the parties’ eight-year separation and settlement, there was no possibility of reconciliation.
• The respondents also relied on past judgments where courts had waived the cooling-off period using Article 142 of the Constitution when marriages had irretrievably broken down.

Court's Observations:

• The court acknowledged that Article 142 of the Constitution grants the Supreme Court power to do complete justice between the parties, but such power cannot contravene statutory provisions unless exceptional circumstances warrant it.
• After reviewing past decisions, the court found that power under Article 142 had been exercised in cases where the marriage was emotionally dead, and reconciliation was not possible. In such cases, the court granted relief to save the parties from further emotional trauma and to expedite their resettlement.

Decision:

The Supreme Court held that the six-month waiting period under Section 13B(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act is not mandatory but directory. It can be waived by the Family Court if the following conditions are satisfied:

1. The parties have been living separately for more than the statutory period.
2. All efforts at mediation and reconciliation have failed.
3. The parties have reached a genuine settlement concerning alimony, child custody, or other pending issues.
4. Prolonging the waiting period would only increase the parties' suffering.

The court further noted that a waiver application could be filed one week after the first motion if there is sufficient cause for the waiver.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court in Amardeep Singh v. Harveen Kaur clarified that courts dealing with divorce by mutual consent under Section 13B(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act can waive the six-month waiting period if the marriage has irretrievably broken down and there is no possibility of reconciliation. This judgment underscores the court’s emphasis on safeguarding the interests of justice, balancing statutory provisions with practical realities, and preventing unnecessary hardship for the parties involved.

The appeal was disposed of, and the parties were given the liberty to approach the Family Court for fresh consideration of their case in light of this ruling. The court also noted that video conferencing or representation through close family members could be permitted in such cases, where justified.

Important Links

Law Library: Notes and Study Material for LLB, LLM, Judiciary, and Entrance Exams

Law Aspirants: Ultimate Test Prep Destination