FAMILY LAW - MUTUAL DIVORCE - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA- JUDGEMENT
(Shared on :-7/6/2018.)
Equivalent Citation: AIR2018SC202, 2018(1)ALD30, 2018 (127) ALR 183, 2018(1)ALT1, 2018(2)BomCR296, I(2018)DMC149SC, 2018(1)RCR(Civil)591, 2017(14)SCALE316, 2018 (2) SCJ 180, 2018 (1) WLN 41 (SC)
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Civil Appeal No. 22913 of 2017 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 31476/2016)
Decided On: 14.12.2017
Appellants: A.V.G.V. Ramu
Vs.
Respondent: A.S.R. Bharathi
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
R.K. Agrawal and Abhay Manohar Sapre, JJ.
Counsels:
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: V. Sridhar Reddy, Ashutosh Sharma, Manoj Dwivedi and Gunnam Venkateswara Rao, Advs.
For Respondents/Defendant: Manika Tripathy Pandey and Ashutosh Kaushik, Advs.
Subject: Family
Relevant Section:
HINDU MARRIAGE ACT, 1955 - Section 13B
Acts/Rules/Orders:
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Section 13B, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Section 28; Constitution of India - Article 142
Prior History / High Court Status:
From the Judgment and Order dated 29.08.2016 of the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh in F.C.A. No. 131 of 2016 (MANU/AP/1128/2016)
Subject Category:
FAMILY LAW MATTER - MUTUAL CONSENT DIVORCE MATTERS
Case Note:
Family - Divorce - Entitlement thereto - Section 13B of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Appellant filed application for divorce before Family Court - Application was dismissed as Respondent did not appear in any proceedings - Appeal was filed before High Court which was dismissed on ground that Respondent did not give consent for dissolution of marriage - Hence, present appeal by Appellant - Whether Appellant was entitled for divorce under Section 13B of Act
Facts:
Appellant and Respondent, filed application under Section 13B of Act before the Family Court. Thereafter the case was adjourned. The Respondent did not appear on any of these dates. The Family Judge took up the case on expiry of six months' cooling period and finding that the Respondent did not appear in the proceedings dismissed the application. Appellant felt aggrieved and filed appeal before High Court. In the said appeal, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent stated that her client did not give consent for dissolution of marriage. The High Court, therefore, dismissed the appeal. Hence, present appeal was filed by Appellant.
Held, while allowing the appeal:
(i) Parties had admittedly entered into an agreement to get their marriage dissolved by obtaining decree from the Court. Agreement had the signatures of the Appellant and Respondent. Respondent never denied her signature on the agreement nor its execution and nor its contents. Both the parties pursuant to agreement actually filed an application under Section 13B of the Act seeking dissolution of their marriage duly signed. Parties had been living separately for the last four years due to which their marriage had become irretrievable and there was no point in keeping such marriage alive because when asked the Appellant whether he was prepared to continue with the marriage and would like to live with the Respondent, his lawyer declined. Despite service of the notice of appeal, the Respondent too had also not appeared in Court on any of the dates of hearing and nor sent any letter or written request of any kind so as to know her stand in the appeal. That showed that the Respondent was also not interested in keeping the marital relations alive with the Appellant. [11]
(ii) There was no reason to doubt the genuineness of the agreement and its contents. Keeping in view the conduct of the Respondent and further in the light of reasons set out above, present case to be fit one for passing decree for dissolution of marriage between the parties in terms of the joint petition filed by them.
Disposition:
Appeal Allowed
