IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
CR No.985 of 2016 (O&M)
Date of decision:10.02.2016
Aminder Singh … Petitioner
Harpreet Kaur … Respondent
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL
1. Whether reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to see judgment?
2. To be referred to reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present:- Mr. Prashant Bansal, Advocate for the petitioner.
AMIT RAWAL J. (Oral) The petitioner-husband is aggrieved of the order dated 01.02.2016 (Annexure P-4), whereby, an application seeking condonation of the period of six months in respect of divorce petition filed by invoking the provisions of Section 13(B) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred as 1955 Act), has been dismissed.
Mr. Prashant Bansal, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that first statement in pursuance to the filing of divorce petition under Section 13(B) of 1955 Act is to be suffered tomorrow. Since the family of the petitioner has already found a suitable match for him and therefore, the application waiving of the statutory period of six months had been moved.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and appraised the paper book.
The statute does not envisage waiving of the statutory period of six months. Even the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Neeti Malviya vs. Rakesh Malviya 2010(2) SCC (Civil) 708, has held that the Courts below have no power to waive the statutory period of six months. The only powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India can be exercised, rightly so the application in this regard has been dismissed. The order cannot be said to have been passed without jurisdiction.
Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed.
(AMIT RAWAL) JUDGE February 10, 2016