Kerala High Court
Saji T.Varghese vs State Of Kerala on 22 February, 2010
Equivalent citations: AIR 2011 KERALA 119, (2011) 1 CIVILCOURTC 600, (2011) 1 CURCC 272, (2011) 1 DMC 152, (2010) 4 RECCIVR 838, (2013) 2 MARRILJ 435, (2010) 3 KER LT 804, (2010) 95 ALLINDCAS 773 (KER)
Bench: R.Basant, M.C.Hari Rani
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 37092 of 2009(R)
1. SAJI T.VARGHESE, AGED 36 YEARS,
... Petitioner
2. JECY K., AGED 31 YEARS,
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.N.ASHOK KUMAR
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
The Hon'ble MRS. Justice M.C.HARI RANI
Dated :22/02/2010
O R D E R
R. BASANT &
M.C. HARI RANI, JJ.
-------------------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No.37092 of 2009-R
-------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 22nd day of February, 2010
JUDGMENT
Basant,J.
Can the waiting period after filing the joint petition for divorce under Sec.13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, Sec.10A of the Indian Divorce Act and Sec.28 of the Special Marriage Act be waived by the court suo motu or on the application of both parties?
2. This question arose for consideration in various petitions and we posted all such cases together for hearing. Sri.G. Shrikumar, Advocate, has rendered assistance as amicus curiae for the court. We have had the advantage of hearing Advocates M/s S. Subash Chand, , Sandhya Raju, M.R. Rajesh, R. Sunilkumar, Soby K. Francis and others on the W.P.(C) No.37092 of 2009 -: 2 :- question.
3. We have answered that question in Mat.Appeal No.633/08 today. The finding on that question is extracted below:
"We may, in these circumstances summarise the law and state that not only conditions A, B, C and D below; but condition E below also are mandatory requirements that must all co-exist before the court's power under Sec.13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, Sec.10A of the Divorce Act and Sec.28 of the Special Marriage Act to pass the decree for dissolution on the basis of a joint application for divorce on mutual consent is invoked:
A. Solemnisation of marriage.
B. The mutual agreement of the spouses that the marriage should be dissolved.
C. That the spouses have been living separately for the specified period of one year/two years prior to the presentation of the application.
D. They have not been able to live together during this period; and E. Minimum period of six months and maximum period of 18 months has elapsed from the date on which the W.P.(C) No.37092 of 2009 -: 3 :- application for divorce under Sec.13B of the Hindu Marriage Act and Sec.10A of the Divorce Act is filed and the spouses have made the second motion for dissolution thereafter."
4. Having so understood the law, we look at the facts in this case. The parties are Christians. They both employed abroad. Their marriage was solemnized on 18/9/04. They started separate residence with effect from 7/6/09. In December, 2009 they applied for dissolution of marriage by mutual consent under Sec.10A of the Divorce Act. That application stands dismissed by the impugned order - Ext.P3. The petitioners pray that the impugned order may be set aside and the period of waiting may be dispensed with.
5. In the light of the law that we have already ascertained, which we have extracted above, the prayer to dispense with the period of six months under Sec.10A of the Divorce Act is found to be without any merit. This petition is accordingly dismissed.
6. We may hasten to observe that the personal presence of such applicants/spouses in the application for dissolution of marriage by mutual consent need not be unnecessarily insisted by the court. It is submitted that the parties find it difficult to personally appear after the period of waiting. After the period of waiting, a second motion need only be made and personal W.P.(C) No.37092 of 2009 -: 4 :- presence of the spouses need not be insisted. The learned counsel can make such second motion on their behalf. Their presence need not also be insisted to tender evidence. Ordinarily chief affidavits can be filed by them to state their case on oath. Hence the personal presence of the parties need not ordinarily be insisted. In the instant case, conciliation has already taken place, it is submitted. Even otherwise, ritualistic insistence on personal presence of the parties for conciliation/counselling need not be made by a court in a joint application for divorce on the ground of mutual consent, if the court is otherwise satisfied about the genuineness of the application.
Sd/-
R. BASANT (Judge) Sd/-
M.C. HARI RANI (Judge) Nan/ //True Copy// P.S. to Judge