Allahabad High Court
Manish Sirohi vs Smt. Meenakshi on 31 July, 2007
Equivalent citations: AIR2007ALL211, 2007(4)AWC3824, AIR 2007 ALLAHABAD 211, 2007 (5) ALL LJ 793, 2008 (1) AJHAR (NOC) 100 (ALL.) = AIR 2007 ALLAHABAD 211, 2008 (1) AKAR (NOC) 26 (ALL.), 2007 A I H C 3688, (2008) MATLR 9, (2007) 4 ALL WC 3824, (2007) 69 ALL LR 112
Author: Amitava Lala
Bench: Amitava Lala, Shishir Kumar
ORDER Amitava Lala, J.
1. The fact of the case is that the appellant/husband was the petitioner in the court below in making an application in the nature of Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') for the purpose of divorce since immediately after the marriage there was no relationship amongst themselves, i.e., the husband and the wife. The respondent/wife filed a written statement also specifically stating under paragraph 17 that she is not inclined to continue marital relationship with her husband.
2. Inspite of the same, the Court was not pleased to pass decree/order for divorce taking a plea that as per Section 14 of the Act, Court cannot entertain any petition for dissolution of a marriage by a decree of divorce, unless at the date of the presentation of the petition one year has elapsed from the date of the marriage.
3. Against this background an appeal was preferred. In the appeal learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent/wife also made the similar submission, as made in the court below. However, the Court was inclined to know directly from the husband and the wife as to whether any chance of reconciliation is available or they are serious in respect of non-continuation of their marital life.
4. Therefore, pursuant to the earlier direction both the husband and the wife become present before the Court. They have given answers to the queries of the Court specifically. Firstly, both of them identified by their learned Counsel. Secondly, they have submitted that they are not inclined to continue their marital relationship. Thirdly, they have submitted that they are not inclined to go for any reconciliation. Fourthly, they wanted decree of divorce from this Court.
5. We have gone through the provision contained under the proviso to Section 14 of the Act and we find that the High Court can allow to present the petition before lapse of one year from the date of marriage on the ground that the case is one of exceptional hardship to the petitioner or of exceptional depravity on the part of the respondent. It appears to us that when immediately after marriage no marital relationship developed amongst the mselves and they are voluntarily inclined to withdraw relationship, their life should not be allowed to be deserted. When differences have occurred which cannot be compromised if at this stage they are separated, they can be able to enjoy their happy marital life elsewhere. Continuance of the litigation will cause mental and physical harassment to them unnecessarily when both of them are not inclined to continue with the relationship at all. Both the parties have withdrawn their allegations and counter allegations against each other.
6. Therefore, it is a fit case to apply the proviso to Section 14 of the Act by the High Court itself in appeal being continuance of original proceeding. Hence, by consent of the parties the appeal is disposed of by passing decree for divorce upon setting aside the order of the court below without remitting to that Court unnecessarily in the above circumstances.
7. However, no order is passed as to costs.
Shishir Kumar, J.
8. I agree.