Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Rukhmini vs Kumar Shashank on 25 January, 2024
Bench: Hrishikesh Roy, Prashant Kumar Mishra
1
ITEM NO.13 COURT NO.6 SECTION IX
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s).1685/2024
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 21-09-2023 in AS
No. 15642/2023 passed by the High Court Of Judicature At Bombay At
Nagpur)
RUKHMINI Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
KUMAR SHASHANK Respondent(s)
(FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.15248/2024-PERMISSION TO FILE
ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES )
Date : 25-01-2024 This petition was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA
For Petitioner(s) Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Atmaram Nadkarni, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Tanmaya Mehta, Adv.
Ms. Soumya Priyadarshinee, AOR
Mr. Ankit Ambasta, Adv.
Mr. Amit Srivastava, Adv.
Mr. Amlaan Kumar, Adv.
For Respondent(s)
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
Heard Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner.
2. The counsel would point out that a joint application (dated 25.04.2022) was filed by both parties under Section 13B of the Hindu Signature Not Verified Marriage Act, 1955, for divorce by mutual consent. Digitally signed by
But on the date of Jayant Kumar Arora Date: 2024.01.29 the second motion, the respondent had filed an application for revoking 18:18:41 IST Reason:
his consent for the mutual divorce (Annexure P-7).
3. It is pointed out from the application (Annexure P-21) by the 2 learned Senior Counsel that cohabitation between the parties is unlikely and it is not a case of revocation of consent in order to resume marital life. In fact, issue pertaining to property etc. is suggested as the possible reason for withdrawal of consent by the other side.
4. The Senior Counsel would argue that when the parties have been living apart for last several years and a joint decision was taken by them to apply for divorce by mutual consent under Section 13B, the cooling off period is intended to only enable the parties to reflect upon on whether they would like to resume marital life. This period is not meant for taking a different stand not based on bona fide reasons.
5. With the above projection, Dr. Singhvi submits that the Family Court should not have dismissed the application filed under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for divorce by mutual consent and the High Court too erred in upholding such decision of the Family Court.
6. According to the senior counsel, if the parties are not amenable to resume marital life, the way forward should be to separate formally and this Court can then pass appropriate order even without the benefit of the provisions of Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act,1955.
7. Issue notice, returnable on 18th March 2024. Dasti, in addition, is permitted.
(DEEPAK JOSHI) (KAMLESH RAWAT) COURT MASTER (SH) ASSISTANT REGISTRAR