Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Rukhmini vs Kumar Shashank on 18 March, 2024
Bench: Hrishikesh Roy, Prashant Kumar Mishra
1
ITEM NO.38 COURT NO.7 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 : 18-03-2024 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. A.N.S Nadkarni, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Tanmaya Mehta, Adv.
Mr. Rajat Nair, Adv.
Ms. Soumya Priyadarshinee, AOR
Mr. Amit Kumar Srivastava, Adv.
Mr. Amlaan Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Amit Bhandari, Adv.
Mr. Salvador Santosh Rebello, Adv.
Mr. Ankit Ambasta, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Rajat Joseph, AOR
Ms. Kamini Jaiswal, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
Signature Not Verified Heard Mr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, learned Senior Counsel Digitally signed by Jayant Kumar Arora Date: 2024.03.19 appearing 15:39:52 IST Reason: for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. Kamini Jaiswal, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.
2. The submission of the learned counsel makes it clear that the 2 parties do not wish to continue in the matrimonial relationship, with each other.
3. The learned counsel for the respondent would however point out that the couple’s daughter is now aged about four years and although she would normally be staying with the mother, the respondent would like to have in place an appropriate arrangement, to have a genuine relationship with the daughter.
4. Notice in this case was issued on 25.01.2024, with the following order:-
“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 Marriage Act, 1955, for divorce by mutual consent. But on the date of the second motion, the respondent had filed an application for revoking his consent for the mutual divorce (Annexure P-7).
3. It is pointed out from the application (Annexure P-21) by the 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 3 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.”
5. Since then, the respondent has filed counter affidavit.
6. Today, it is the joint submission of the counsel that although earlier mediation attempts have failed, the parties are amenable to Mediation by a former Judge of this Court. Accordingly, both the petitioner and the respondent are referred for Mediation by Justice S. Ravindra Bhat, former Judge, Supreme Court of India. Both parties will appear before him, on a date convenient to the learned Judge.
7. List the matter immediately, after Report is received from the learned Mediator.
(DEEPAK JOSHI) (KAMLESH RAWAT) COURT MASTER (SH) ASSISTANT REGISTRAR