Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

"This is a very radical amendment as it enables divorce by consent. It also virtually puts a death-nail on the old concept of Hindu Law and Hindu morality that marriage is a sacrament and not a contract."

However, a petition filed for divorce by consent under S. 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act is required to be kept in abeyance for a minimum period of six months. This is in sharp contrast with a petition filed for divorce by consent under Special Marriage Act which is liable to be kept in abeyance at least for one year. This liberalising trend of law in the matter of granting divorce by consent cannot be lost sight by Courts in interpreting that section. But even then Cl. (2) of S. 13-B requires a Court not to pass a decree for divorce before six months of time lapses and after 18 months of time passes from the date of filing of such a petition for divorce by mutual consent. This is the last hope of the legislature for saving the marriage. The intention of the legislature is to provide a minimum period of six months for re-thinking of the parties. If the above time-table fixed by S. 13-B(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act is applied to the present application made by the parties in this case on 12th July 1985. We have to adjourn this case till January, 1986 for passing a decree for divorce under that section, notwithstanding the fact that we are of the opinion that there is no chance of reconciliation between the parties who have been living away from each other for the last 41/2 years and are today most anxious and ready to obtain such a decree here and now. That situation raises somewhat an important legal question as to the meaning which we should attribute to S. 13-B(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act. That question is whether the Legislature intended that S. 13-B(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act should be treated as a mandatory provision of law or the Legislature intended that section to be treated merely as a directory provision of law. We have already noticed the language of S. 13-B(2). On first impression it is not impossible to hold S. 13-B(2) to be mandatory. As a mandatory provision of law calls for its pound of flesh and requires to be complied strictly and it not being satisfied with offerings of more substantial compliance of its commands, we will have to adjourn this matter for six months and postpone the deliverance to the parties from this deadlock by the that period of time (sic). It is well-settled proposition of law that a statutory provision, though mandatory in form, can yet be treated as directory in substance. The question then arises whether there is anything in the text of S. 13-B(2) of its context or purpose or design that calls for S. 13-B(2) being interpreted as directory? In our opinion, there are weighty reasons warranting the reading of S. 13 - B Cl. (2) as directory. In that context, we must first call attention to the design of the law expressed in its liberalising tendency of providing relief to parties on the basis of their mutual consent from their broken marriages. We must remember that this relief is granted by bringing about a profound alteration in the concept of a Hindu marriage from that of a sacrament to a contract. By that alteration, law has definitely set its face against forcible perpetuation of the status of matrimoney between unwilling partners. Next, we must note that this six month's time fixed by S. 13-B(2) is not a rule relating to the jurisdiction of the Courts to entertain a petition filed for divorce by consent. That question of jurisdiction is dealt with by S. 13-B(1) of the Act and must be strictly complied with S. 13-B(2) is a part of mere procedure. A procedural provision must be interpreted as a handmaid of justice in order to advance and further the interests of justice and not as a technical rule. Above all we should note that if S. 13-B(2) is read as a mandatory provision and as applicable to the exercise of matrimonial jurisdiction by the appellate Courts also, S. 13-B(2) becomes totally unworkable. According to the literal reading of S. 13-B(2) the courts cannot pass consent decree of divorce beyond 18 months period from the date of its filing. In the event that such an application is filed by the parties and the Courts for some reason of human error or failure did not or could not dispose it of within the said period of 18 months, the literal reading of S. 13-B(2) prevents the Courts from granting that relief thereafter. Similarly if a petition for divorce by mutual consent is filed before the lower Court and was dismissed by the lower Court for some reason, the appellate Court would be powerless to grant that relief on the basis of the application filed in the lower Court because 18 months must have elapsed by the time the matter reached the appellate forum although the parties are still fighting relentlessly in the appellate Court. These considerations lead us to hold that it could not have been the intention of S. 13-B(2) that the appellate Court should always drive the fighting parties to go through the purposeless forms of meaningless ceremony of petitioning again for consent divorce waiting and watching the completion of necessary number of revolutions of this mother Earth around the unmoving sun.