Page 47 - 31MAY2019E

relations

appear to be any likelihood of such rec- “The Supreme Court has clearly held it will be open to the Court to exercise
onciliation. The parties have lived sepa- that the period mentioned in Section its discretion in the facts and circum-
rately since October 25, 2017 and the 13B (2) is not mandatory but direc- stances of each case where there is no
composite period of 18 months expired tory, and that a court may exercise this possibility of parties resuming cohabi-
on April 25, 2019. The petitioner (wom- discretion in the facts and circum- tation and there are chances of alterna-
an) has also expressed her intention stances of each case, when there is tive rehabilitation,” the bench of judges
to enter into another marriage with a no possibility of the parties to resume Adarsh Goel and UU Lalit had said at
non-resident Indian, who is resident cohabitation and there are chances of the time.
in Australia. The counsel submits that, alternative rehabilitation. In the facts “That an application for waiver of the
although the marriage had been fixed and circumstances of the present case, six-month period set out in the Hindu
for May 2, it could not be solemnised on therefore, the woman’s application Marriage Act can be given a go-by if
that date due to the fact that the present for wavier of the mandatory period of parties have genuinely settled their dif-
divorce proceedings had not conclud- six months ought to have been allowed,” ferences including alimony, custody
ed,” it said. it said. of child or any other pending issues
It was submitted before the court Hearing a case in September 2017, between the parties, and the waiting
that the prospective bride-groom is the Supreme Court had ruled that a period will only prolong their agony.”
in India until May 10 and the insist- six-month waiting period for Hindu “If there are no chances of reunion
ence on completion of the waiting couples seeking divorce is not manda- and there are chances of fresh rehabili-
period of six months would only pro- tory, laying down directions for lower tation, the court should not be power-
long the woman’s agony, contrary to the courts to speed up separation if both less in enabling the parties to have a
dictum of the Supreme Court. The court spouses agree upon the terms. The
noted that the mandatory period of decision had brought significant res-
six months would also be over on pite to couples who file for divorce “by ‘A holistic reading
May 22, therefore, what is being sought mutual consent”. of the apex court’s
in this petition is a waiver of about “The period mentioned in Section
15 days. 13B(2) is not mandatory but directory, judgement leads to
the conclusion that

About ‘cooling off’ period purposeless marriage
which has no chance
of reunion ought not
♦ Hindu couples who have mutu- court found there was no further to be prolonged’
ally agreed to separate need not chance for reconciliation.
wait anymore for the mandatory ♦ In September 2017, a Bench of
“cooling off” period of six months Justices AK Goel and UU Lalit ob- better option.”
before divorce. served that “The waiting period The court had said that every effort
♦ Previously, once a couple moves will only prolong their agony.” has to be made to save a marriage, but
to a court of law for divorce under ♦ The court held that the waiting pointed out that “if there are no chanc-
the Hindu Marriage Act, they have period should be done away with es of reunion and there are chances of
to wait for a minimum period of in cases where there is no way to fresh rehabilitation, the court should
six months. save the marriage and all efforts at not be powerless in enabling the parties
♦ Divorce by mutual consent was in- mediation and conciliation have to have a better option”.
troduced as an amendment to the run their course. As per the Hindu Marriage Act, a
Hindu Marriage Act in 1976. ♦ Specially where parties have divorce petition can be filed at a district
♦ The waiting period under Section genuinely settled their differ- court on the ground that a couple has
13B was mandated to prevent cou- ences including alimony, custody been living separately for one year or
ples from taking any hasty deci- of child, etc, between themselves; more, has not been able to live together
sion to end their marriage. and already a year and a half has and has mutually agreed the marriage
♦ The waiting period was for them to passed since their first motion for should be dissolved. After the peti-
have enough time to think through separation. tion is filed, the couple has to wait for
their decision to separate. ♦ The latest verdict was based on the six months before the court hears or
♦ Divorce was granted only after the September 2017 Supreme Court decides.
‘cooling off’ period and once the decision.
letters@tehelka.com

Tehelka / 31 may 2019 47 www.Tehelka.com