Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

The prayer made in the main petition may be deleted entirely and in its place the following lines may be permifted to be substituted.
Wherefore both parties respectfully pray that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to pass a decree of divorce by dissolving the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent solemnised on 30-8-74 and grant such other relief as this Court may deem fit in the circumstances of the case, allowing this petition."

The said application is supported by the affidavits of both parties. Subsequent to this application both parties appeared again before the Court and reiterated that there is no possibility of reconciliation and they agree for divorce by mutual consent as the same will be in the interest of both parties and the children. They also submitted that there is no external threat, influence or collusion behind the proposal of the divorce by mutual consent.

Earlier to the amendment to the Act there was no provision for divorce by mutual consent. But, by virtue of the present amendment divorce by mutual consent is made possible. What is required is a motion by both parties seeking divorce by mutual consent and an order be made out earlier than 6 months and not later than 18 months. Earlier thinking was that there cannot be any compromise in the matrimonial proceedings. But the amendment has made it possible by mutual consent of both parties as held by the Supreme Court in Smt. Saroj Rani v. Sudarshan Kumar Chadha, the relevant portion of which is extracted hereunder:

Explaining the object of S. 13B of the Act, in para 10 of its judgment the Court observed that the period of waiting 6 to 18 months is with an intention to see that the parties to seek advice from their relations. The Supreme Court further observed that, while considering the request by mutual consent the Court has to be satisfied first whether the petition presented for divorce has been presented by mutual consent and the consent given by the parties is a bona fide one.

17. From the facts made available and the views of various courts on the point, it is clear that where separation is of a longer period and chances of re-union an impossibility a decree of divorce is the only prudent course and be granted. In the present case, subsequent to October 1983 no honest attempt was made by the parties to reconcile and live together. Even when attempt was made by this Court to know whether the parties are willing to reconcite, the answer given was one of refusal. This circumstance compelled the parties to seek a decree of divorce by mutual consent as they are entitled under S. 13B(2) of the Act. The application filed in this case under Order 6 Rule 17, CPC is of more than six months old and it can be treated as a compromise petition, i.e., petition for divorce by mutual consent. Since law permits that When he Consent is not tainted with mala fides, fraud or coercion, but given out of free will and with the knowledge of its consequences, the application presented seeking divorce by.mutual consent has to be accepted.

19. In the background of the circumstances narrated in the case, the request made by both parties for divorce by mutual consent is the only just and proper way to allow them to spend their remaining period of life happily with contentment instead of compelling them to lead a miserable and emotional life without any constructive purpose.

20. Hence, the request made by the parties for a decree of divorce by mutual consent has to be granted since it is in their interest and for the welfare of their children. Hence, I.A. No. IV for amendment of the petition is allowed.