HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Reserved on 4-5-2018
Delivered on 19-6-2018
FAM No. 58 of 2017
(Arising out of a visualisation and direct antiquated 29-11-2016 of a Judge, Family Court, Korba, in Civil Suit No. 18-A/2016)
Smt. Sunita Nankani W/o Shri Mahesh Nankani, R/o Near Sindhu Bhawan, Sani Road, Korba, Tahsil and District Korba, CG, during benefaction R/o Flat No. 506, Muskan Plaza, Shatabdipuram, Jabalpur M.P. —- Appellant
Mahesh Nankani S/o Shri Kanhaiyya Lal Nankani, R/o House No. T/48, Hospital Line, Camp Madhav Nagar, Katni, Tahsil and District Katni, M.P. —- Respondent
For appellant : Shri Vipin Punjabi Advocate
For respondent : Shri Ratnesh Kumar Agrawal, Advocate
Hon’ble Shri Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, Chief Justice
Hon’ble Shri Sharad Kumar Gupta, Judge
C.A.V. ORDER Per Sharad Kumar Gupta, Judge
1. In this interest plea is levied to a visualisation and direct antiquated 29-11-2016 of a Judge, Family Court, Korba, in Civil Suit No. 18-A/2016 whereby and whereunder she discharged a appellant’s-wife’s divorce petition filed underneath Section 13 of a Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (in abruptness ‘Act of 1955′) opposite a respondent-husband.
2. In brief, box of a appellant is that her matrimony was solemnized with respondent on 24-2-1995 in suitability with Hindu sacrament and prevalent rites and rituals during Katni, Madhya Pradesh. In their nuptials dual children have innate namely Himanshu Nankani aged about 18 years and Kapil Nankani aged about 15 years who are vital with her. After a matrimony a respondent started badgering her.
3. The respondent remained exparte and did not record created statement.
4. After end of a trial, a conference Court upheld aforesaid visualisation and decree. Being aggrieved, a appellant has elite this appeal.
5. During pendency of this appeal, a box was referred to a High Court Mediation Centre where a allotment was arrived during between a parties and both a parties were concluded that they will record an focus for divorce by mutual consent. In avail thereof, both a parties have filed an focus for divorce by mutual agree on 27-4-2018.
6. It would be impending to discuss a supplies of Section 13-B of a Act of 1955 that reads as under:- “13-B. Divorce by mutual consent.–(1) Subject to a supplies of this Act a petition for retraction of matrimony by a direct of divorce might be presented to a district justice by both a parties to a matrimony together, either such matrimony was solemnized before or after a derivation of a Marriage Laws (Amendment) Act, 1976, on a belligerent that they have been vital alone for a duration of one year or more, that they have not been means to live together and that they have jointly concluded that a matrimony should be dissolved. (2) On a suit of both a parties done not progressing than 6 months after a date of a display of a petition referred to in sub-section (1) and not after than eighteen months after a pronounced date, if a petition is not cold in a meantime, a justice shall, on being satisfied, after conference a parties and after creation such exploration as it thinks fit, that a matrimony has been solemnized and that a averments in a petition are true, pass a direct of divorce dogmatic a matrimony to be dissolved with outcome from a date of a decree.
7. In a matter of Amardeep Singh -v- Harveen Kaur [(2017) 8 SCC 746], in para 19 and 20 a Hon’ble Apex Court hold that :- “19. Applying a above to a benefaction situation, we are of a perspective that where a justice traffic with a matter is confident that a box is done out to relinquish a orthodox duration underneath Section 13-B(2), it can do so after deliberation a following: (i) a orthodox duration of 6 months specified in Section 13- B(2), in serve to a orthodox duration of one year underneath Section 13-B(1) of subdivision of parties is already over before a initial suit itself; (ii) all efforts for mediation/conciliation including efforts in terms of Order 32-A Rule 3 CPC/Section 23(2) of a Act/ Section 9 of a Family Courts Act to reunite a parties have unsuccessful and there is no odds of success in that instruction by any serve efforts; (iii) a parties have overtly staid their differences including alimony, control of child or any other tentative issues between a parties; (iv) a watchful duration will usually lengthen their agony. The waiver focus can be filed one week after a initial suit giving reasons for a request for waiver. If a above conditions are satisfied, a waiver of a watchful duration for a second suit will be in a option of a justice concerned. 20. Since we are of a perspective that a duration mentioned in Section 13-B(2) is not imperative though directory, it will be open to a justice to practice a option in a contribution and resources of any box where there is no probability of parties resuming cohabitation and there are chances of choice rehabilitation.”
8. From a above legal fashion laid down in Amardeep Singh (supra), it is undeniable that supplies of Section 13-B(2) of a Act of 1955 are office in inlet and Court might relinquish a 6 months’ orthodox watchful duration deliberation a resources as forked out in above cited box law.
9. This Court has inquired both a parties. We are confident that both a parties have filed a focus voluntarily, but any change or pressure. They have been vital alone for a duration of one year or more. They have not been means to live together and they have jointly concluded that a matrimony should be dissolved. All efforts for mediation/conciliation have unsuccessful in saving a matrimony and there is no odds of success in that instruction by any serve efforts. Parties have overtly staid their differences and have overtly and bonafidely motionless to part. The watchful duration will usually lengthen their agony. We see a clever box to relinquish a orthodox duration of 6 months underneath Section 13-B(2) of a Act of 1955. Thus, this Court waives a aforesaid watchful duration of 6 months and orders that a aforesaid matrimony solemnized between a appellant and a respondent is dissolved by a direct of divorce from currently and a respondent-husband shall compensate a stipend for upkeep during a rate of Rs. 10,000/- (Rs. Ten Thousand) per month to a teenager child Kapil Nankani by his defender – mom a appellant, compartment he attains infancy from a date of filing of a focus i.e. 27-4-2018.
10. The interest is accordingly likely of.
11.Parties shall bear their possess costs.
12. A direct be drawn adult accordingly.
(Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan) (Sharad Kumar Gupta)
Chief Justice Judge