Case Summary: Sureshta Devi v. Om Prakash (1991) | Divorce by Mutual Consent

Date of Judgment: 7th February 1991

Facts

Smt. Sureshta Devi and Om Prakash married on November 21, 1968, and lived together for six to seven months. Following separation, both parties filed a joint petition under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act for divorce by mutual consent. However, before the final decree could be passed, Smt. Sureshta Devi retracted her consent, alleging that her earlier agreement had been obtained under duress and pressure from her husband.

The District Judge initially dismissed the divorce petition upon Smt. Sureshta Devi's withdrawal of consent. However, the Himachal Pradesh High Court reversed the decision, ruling that unilateral withdrawal of consent does not invalidate the mutual consent divorce petition, provided the original consent was not obtained through force or fraud. Smt. Sureshta Devi then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Issue

Whether a spouse can unilaterally withdraw their consent to a mutual consent divorce under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 before the final decree is passed.

Judgment

The Supreme Court, in allowing the appeal, set aside the High Court's decision and ruled that mutual consent must be sustained until the final decree of divorce is passed. The Court highlighted the following points in its judgment:

I) Mutual Consent Requirement:

Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act outlines that for a divorce to be granted by mutual consent, both parties must jointly file a petition, followed by a joint motion not earlier than six months and not later than 18 months from the date of the petition. This time frame allows the parties to reflect and reconsider their decision.

II) Withdrawal of Consent:

The Court clarified that mutual consent must continue up to the point when the court passes the divorce decree. If one party withdraws their consent before the decree is finalized, the court cannot grant a divorce by mutual consent. The essence of mutuality must remain intact until the decree is pronounced.

III) Living Separately:

The Court further explained that the term "living separately" does not necessarily mean living in different places. It refers to not living together as husband and wife, with no intention of resuming marital obligations.

IV) Implication of the Ruling:

The ruling established that either spouse has the right to withdraw consent at any point before the court passes the decree for divorce. This right ensures that the divorce is truly consensual and reflects the genuine intention of both parties at the time of the decree.

The Supreme Court referred to various High Court rulings that had conflicting views on this issue. While the Bombay, Delhi, and Madhya Pradesh High Courts had held that consent at the time of filing the petition was sufficient, the Kerala, Punjab & Haryana, and Rajasthan High Courts had ruled in favour of allowing withdrawal of consent before the decree.

The Supreme Court affirmed the view of the Kerala, Punjab & Haryana, and Rajasthan High Courts, emphasizing the need for mutual consent to persist throughout the process.

Conclusion

The judgment in Smt. Sureshta Devi v. Om Prakash has significant implications for matrimonial law in India. It upholds the right of either spouse to withdraw their consent for a mutual divorce at any stage before the final decree is passed. The Court's decision reinforces the idea that mutual consent is essential not only at the time of filing the petition but also throughout the process until the court grants the divorce.

This case serves as a crucial precedent for understanding the importance of continued mutual consent in divorce proceedings under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act. It underscores that the divorce process must reflect the free will and genuine intention of both parties at every stage.

Important Links

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

Law Aspirants: Ultimate Test Prep Destination