top of page
Search

Does Consent Divorce Have No Cooling Time?

  • Writer: lead India
    lead India
  • Jul 20, 2023
  • 3 min read

SECTION 13(B) provided for divorce by mutual consent by presentation of the petition (first motion) in the District Court by the parties on the grounds that (1) they have been living separately for a period of one year or more, (2) that they have been unable to cohabitate, and (3) that they have mutually agreed that the marriage should be dissolved. SECTION 13(B) also provided for second petitions to be filed not earlier than six months after the first petition.


With time, the Indian Courts encountered a number of these divorce cases in which the parties were adamant that their differences could not be resolved and would continue to exist even after the statutory cooling-off period of six months, which begins on the date the first petition or motion was filed.


Case Laws:

The Statutory Cooling Off Period was finally allowed to be waived off after taking into account some factors outlined by the Supreme Court of India in Re: Amit Kumar v. Suman Beniwal- SC judgement_11-Dec-2021. Only a small number of these cases reached the Supreme Court of India, and after thorough research and observation of existing laws, legislative intent, and the interests of the parties to the marriage.


But getting to the aforementioned verdict was not simple and it required a lot of cases and judgements. The following are a few recent significant judgements and rulings that the Honourable Supreme Court of India has cited, noted, and clarified, in chronological order:

  • On September 1, 2009, Anil Kumar Jain and Maya Jain square off. Although irretrievable breakdown of a marriage is not one of the grounds listed under Sections 13 or 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for granting a divorce, India's prestigious Supreme Court ruled in this case that the aforementioned doctrine can be applied to a proceeding under either of the aforementioned two provisions only if the Supreme Court is sitting as the trial court. By using its exceptional powers granted by Article 142 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court may give relief to parties without even waiting the six-month waiting time required under Section 13B of the aforementioned Act.

  • Meenakshi Nangia v. Devinder Singh Narula, 22 August 2012, Honourable Supreme Court of India considered its finding in Re: Anil Kumar Jain v. Maya Jain, (2009) 10 SCC 415:(2009) 4 SCC (Civ) 226 when making its decision in this matter. and also praised the legislature's wisdom and intention in establishing a six-month cooling-off period to protect the institution of marriage, but added that there may be times when it becomes necessary for this Court to use its authority under Article 142 in an irreconcilable circumstance in order to fully uphold the rights of the parties.

  • Harveen Kaur v. Amardeep Singh, 12 September 2017 Hon. Indian Supreme Court After taking into account the following facts, the supreme court in this case permitted to waive the statutory time of cooling down by filing a waiver application one week after the initial motion citing grounds for the request for waiver:

  • Before the first motion itself, the six-month waiting period outlined in Section 13B(2) and the one-year waiting period outlined in Section 13B(1) of the separation of parties have already expired;

  • All attempts at mediation or conciliation, including those made in accordance with Order 32A Rule 3 CPC, Section 23(2) of the Act, and Section 9 of the Family Courts Act to bring the parties back together, have failed, and there is no chance that further attempts will succeed;

  • The parties have sincerity resolved their differences, including alimony, child custody, and any other outstanding issues between the parties;

  • The waiting period will only add to their suffering.

  • Suman Beniwal v. Amit Kumar, 11 December 2021 Hon. Indian Supreme Court The Family Court and the High Court have erroneously interpreted this Court's decision in Amardeep Singh v. Harveen Kaur, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India remarked in this appeal/case. The Supreme Court ruled that the elements listed in Amardeep Singh v. Harveen Kaur were indicative rather than exhaustive, but that the relevant court was required to take them into consideration.

If the couples filed mutual divorce then the Mutual divorce process should be followed. If the petition is filed in Noida then Divorce lawyer in Noida may be appointed. Moreover, Divorce lawyer in Delhi may be hired if the petition is filed in Delhi.


Lead India offers information, legal services, and free legal advice online to solve the issue. Talk to a lawyer and ask a legal question will provide the finest counsel in this situation.


Call Us: +91–8800788535


 
 
 

Comments

Thelila059

info@mysite.com

©2023 by Thelila059. Proudly created with Wix.com

bottom of page