IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
FAO(HMA) No. 432 of 2018
Decided on: November 13, 2018
.
_
Himanshu Nagpal .. Appellant
Versus
Palak ……….Respondent
_
Coram:
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting? 1 yes.
_
For the appellant : Mr. K.D. Sood, Senior Advocate
with Mr. Sanjeev Sood, Advocate.
For the respondent :
Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Senior
Advocate with Ms. Devyani
r Sharma, Advocate.
_
Sandeep Sharma, Judge:(oral)
By way of present appeal filed under S. 28 of the Hindu
Marriage Act (hereinafter, ‘Act’), challenge has been laid to order
dated 22.5.2018 passed by the learned District Judge, Kangra at
Dharamshala in HMA Case No. 09/III/2018, whereby joint
petition having been filed on behalf of the appellant and
respondent, under S. 13B(2) of the Act, for dissolution of
marriage by a decree of divorce with mutual consent, came to be
dismissed.
2. Briefly stated the facts, as emerge from the record are
that the marriage between the parties was solemnized on
14.10.2016 at Budhamal Castle, Palampur, Tehsil Palampur,
1
Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
15/11/2018 22:57:00 :::HCHP
2
District Kangra, H.P., as per Hindu rites and customs but they
were not able to live together for long on account of certain
.
differences and as such, they, of their own volition and without
there being any undue pressure, filed a joint petition under S.
13B(2) of the Act, praying therein for dissolution of their marriage
by way of decree of divorce with mutual consent. One of the
parties i.e. appellant-husband, Himanshu Nagpal, who resides
abroad, executed a Special Power of Attorney authorizing his
father, Shri Surya Prakash Nagpal, to move a joint petition under
S. 13B of the Act, alongwith his wife, Palak Nagpal before the
learned Court below, however, the fact remains that the learned
Court below rejected the petition vide impugned order dated
22.5.2018, on the ground of maintainability. Learned District
Judge concluded that since the petition on behalf of appellant
was signed by his father, being his attorney, same could not be
accepted. In the aforesaid background, parties have approached
this court by way of instant appeal, laying therein challenge to
the aforesaid order passed by the learned District Judge, praying
therein for dissolution of their marriage by way of decree of
divorce with mutual consent, after setting aside the impugned
order passed by the court below.
3. Before adverting to the factual matrix of the case, it may
be noticed that on the last date of hearing i.e. 6.11.2018,
15/11/2018 22:57:00 :::HCHP
3
respondent-Palak, who had come present with her father,
categorically stated before this court that she has no objection in
.
case prayer made in the petition is accepted and marriage inter
se parties is ordered to be dissolved with mutual consent,
however, she had stated that before passing a decree of divorce,
amount agreed to be paid to her in terms of compromise, may be
paid to her. On the last date of hearing, parties also placed on
record, settlement deed, wherein appellant has agreed to pay a
sum of `8.00 Lakh as permanent alimony to his wife, Palak.
Similarly, respondent also stated that she has received all the
dowry articles as per agreed terms and she has no claim against
the appellant and she shall withdraw all the cases lodged by her
against the appellant and/or his family members.
4. Today, Ms. Palak (respondent), on oath, stated before
this court that she has received a sum of `8.00 Lakh as per
agreed terms towards full and final settlement and now she has
no claim against the appellant. She further stated that she shall
be withdrawing all the case pending in various courts of law,
against the appellant as well as his family members, within a
period of one week. She categorically stated before this court that
she has no objection in case prayer having been made in the
instant appeal, which bears her signatures, is accepted and
marriage inter se parties is ordered to be dissolved by way of
15/11/2018 22:57:00 :::HCHP
4
decree of divorce with mutual consent. Her statement is taken on
record. The settlement deed is also made part of the record.
.
5. Now, the question, which remains to be determined in
the instant proceedings by this court is, whether petition under
S. 13B(2) under the signatures of father of the appellant, being
his attorney, is maintainable or not? Undisputedly, petition
under S. 13B on behalf of the appellant has been signed by his
father being his attorney, whereas, respondent has signed the
petition herself. Special Power of Attorney placed on record
(available at page-23 of the paper-book), which, otherwise, has
not been disputed by the respondent, clearly suggests that the
appellant has authorised his father to sign the petition under
S.13B of the Act on his behalf for grant of divorce by mutual
consent from his wife, Ms. Palak.
6. S. 13B of the Act, provides that a petition for dissolution
of marriage by a decree of divorce can be presented to the District
Court by both the parties to the marriage together on the ground
that they have been living separately for a period of one year or
more and they have not been able to live together and they have
mutually agreed that their marriage be ordered to be dissolved on
the motion of both the parties. Careful reading of S. 13B, does
not suggest that personal appearance of the parties seeking
divorce by way of mutual consent is mandatory, rather, it has
15/11/2018 22:57:00 :::HCHP
5
been specifically provided under S. 13B, that the petition for
dissolution of marriage by way of decree of divorce can be
.
presented to the District Court by both the parties to the
marriage together and there is no specific condition/bar as such
that such a petition can not be presented through attorney.
There cannot be any dispute with regard to the fact that at the
time of considering prayer for grant of divorce, if any, under S.
13B, by way of mutual consent, court is required to record its
satisfaction about the consent in terms of provisions of the Act
but appearance of both the parties or their consent can also be
through their duly constituted attorneys, especially when there is
no specific bar contained under the Act, however, in the absence
of parties, especially where attorneys appear on behalf of the
parties, courts are required to be more cautious and vigilant,
while recording their satisfaction about the consent. But
definitely, petition for dissolution of marriage by way of decree of
divorce with mutual consent cannot be rejected merely on the
ground that one of the parties did not appear in person.
7. Reliance is placed on a judgment delivered by the
Andhra Pradesh High Court (D.B) in Padmakiran Rao (Mrs.)
Versus B. Venkateramana Rao, 1996(2) HLR 271, wherein it
has been held that the word ‘hearing’ is often used in a broad
15/11/2018 22:57:00 :::HCHP
6
sense which need not always mean personal hearing. The High
Court held as under:
.
“2. Relying on the wording – “after hearing the parties” in
Sub-section (2) of Section 13-B, the learned Subordinate
Judge took the view that both the parties to the marriage
should necessarily be present in the Court forexamination and the filing of affidavit will not be a
substitute for that requirement. The learned Judge
observed that unless the parties are personally present, it
would be difficult for the Court to assess whether theyhave changed their mind since the date of filing the
petition. We do not think that this is a correct view to be
taken. ‘Hearing’ does not necessarily mean that bothparties have to be examined. The word ‘hearing’ is often
used in a broad sense which need not always mean
personal hearing. In any case, the evidence of one of the
parties i.e., the appellant herein was recorded by the
Court. Thus, even if the word ‘hearing’ is construed in aliteral sense that requirement must be deemed to have
been satisfied in the instant case in view of the
examination of the appellant. On the husband’s side,there is evidence in the form of an affidavit which can be
legitimately taken into account in view of Order XIX Rule1 C.P.C. It is not as if the affidavit has been doubted or
the other party wanted to cross-examine the deponent ofthe affidavit. When there are no suspicious circumstances
or any particular reason to think that the averments in
the affidavit may not be true, there is absolutely no
reason why the Court should not act on the affidavit filed
by one of the parties. The learned Judge fell into error of
law in observing that he cannot look into the affidavit at
all. There is also a valid reason for non-attendance of the
respondent in the Court. In the circumstances, the order15/11/2018 22:57:00 :::HCHP
7of the lower Court is set aside and the appeal is allowed.
We declare that the marriage between the parties shall
stand dissolved with effect from the date of this judgment.
and a decree for divorce be passed. We make no order as
to costs.”
8. Reliance is also placed upon Navdeep Kaur Vs.
Maninder Singh Ahluwalia 2010(2) Civil Court Cases 383 (PH),
wherein the High Court of Punjab and Haryana has held as
under:
“8. It is a case in which the parties lived together only for a
period of three months. After the marriage on 7.1.2007, thedivorce petition by way of mutual consent was filed on 6.1.2009
meaning thereby that admittedly the parties were residing
separately for the last more than one year at the time of
presentation of petition. It is also not in dispute that the
respondent husband had gone abroad and he had not comeback since then. The petition was filed on behalf of the husband
by his father as his attorney. Even on the first date of hearing, it
is the joint statement of the father of the husband respondent,Dharam Singh which was recorded as his attorney and the
appellant Navdeep Kaur. The same is extracted below:–
“I, Dharam Singh, is the GPA of my son Mainder Singh
Ahluwalia, vide GPA, the copy of which is Ex. PA (Original
seen and returned). Our marriage of the parties wassolemnised on 07-01-2007 at Chandigarh as per Sikh
rites and ceremonies. On account of differences of
temperament, it was not possible to live together as
husband and wife and they are living separately since 08-
04-2007. Out of this wed lock, no child was born. The
matter was amicably settled between the parties and a
compromise deed is Ex. PB and as per the compromise,
petitioner No. 1 will pay a sum of Rs. 2,35,000/- to
petitioner No. 2 and as per settlement, a Demand draft of
Rs. 1,35,000/- No. 407218. dated 22.12.2008, drawn on
SBOP, payable at Chandigarh, has been handed over to15/11/2018 22:57:00 :::HCHP
8petitioner No. 2 and remaining amount of Rs. 1,00,000/-
will be paid on the next date of hearing and petitioner No.
2 withdraw all the criminal cases filed by her against the
petitioner No. 1 and his family and in future will not file.
any sort of litigation against them and will not claim any
maintenance from petitioner No. 1 in future for herself.
The contents mentioned in the petition are correct and are
signed by us. The marriage may kindly be dissolved.”
11. The issue which arises for consideration before this court
is as to whether it is mandatory for the parties to appear in
person in court at the time of filing of petition for divorce by way
of mutual consent and also at the time of second motion or the
attorney can be authorised to appear?
18. A perusal of the impugned judgment of the learned court
below shows that the learned court below dismissed the petition
on the ground that the parties had not appeared in person. It
had not recorded any finding as regards the petition being not
bonafide or that the averments made in the petition were not
true and correct and further that the consent of either of the
parties had been obtained by force, fraud or undue influence
which was sine-qua-non for consideration of a petition for
divorce by way of mutual consent.
19. In view of the enunciation of law, as referred to above and
also what is provided in Order 3 CPC, in my opinion, once the
court is not doubting the genuineness of the contents stated in
the petition for divorce by way of mutual consent, and one of the
parties are represented by an attorney, who is none else than
the father of the respondent-husband, who has fiduciary
relations with the respondent/husband and cannot be expected
to act against the interest of his son, such a petition cannot be
rejected merely on the ground that one of the parties did not
appear in person. The provisions of Section 13-B of the Act
cannot be read to mean that personal appearance of the parties
is mandatory. Procedural law is subservient to justice.
Appearance of parties would include appearance through duly
15/11/2018 22:57:00 :::HCHP
9
constituted attorneys. The paramount thing which is required to
be considered by the learned court below is the correctness of
the contents of the petition filed and also to see that consent of
.
either of the parties has not been obtained by way of force, fraud
or undue influence. Parties are not required to be called in court
only to see their faces. However, in the absence of the parties,
where the attorney appears, the courts have to be more cautious
and vigilant in recording its satisfaction about the consent in
terms of the provisions of the Act. It may depend on the facts of
a case, considering who is appearing as attorney.
9.
In the aforesaid judgment, High Court of Punjab and
Haryana has categorically held that provisions of S. 13B can not
be read to mean that personal appearance of the parties is
mandatory. Procedural law is subservient to justice and
appearance of parties would include appearance through their
duly constituted attorneys, because paramount thing, which is
required to be considered by the court is correctness of the
contents of petition filed and also to see that consent of either of
the parties has not been obtained by way of force, fraud or undue
influence.
10. In the case at hand, one of the parties i.e. appellant is
unable to visit India that is why he executed a Special Power of
Attorney in favour of his father, authorizing him to sign/file the
petition under S. 13B on his behalf praying therein for
15/11/2018 22:57:00 :::HCHP
10
dissolution of their marriage by way of decree of divorce with
mutual consent.
.
11. Leaving everything aside, respondent-wife has no
objection whatsoever to the prayer having been made on behalf of
the appellant, rather, she fairly stated before this court that she
of her own volition without there being any external pressure has
entered into compromise with her husband (appellant), whereby
they mutually agreed to dissolve their marriage by way of mutual
consent. As has been taken note herein above, parties have
placed on record, settlement deed, whereby respondent has
received a sum of `8.00 Lakh as permanent alimony from the
appellant, as such, veracity and correctness of the petition
presented by father of the appellant being his attorney, can not
be doubted merely on the ground that same has been presented
through an attorney.
12. Paramount consideration of the court, while recording
its satisfaction is to ensure that consent of either of the parties
has not been obtained by way of force, fraud or undue influence.
This court having carefully perused the settlement deed placed
on record and statement of respondent-wife, recorded on oath, is
convinced and satisfied that the contents of the joint petition filed
under S. 13B for divorce by way of mutual consent and also that
of consent of either of the parties have not been obtained by way
15/11/2018 22:57:00 :::HCHP
11
of force, fraud or undue influence as such, prayer made in the
petition under S.13B of the Act, deserves to be accepted,
.
especially when there is no possibility of reproachment or
conciliation between the parties and as such, prayer for grant of
divorce by way of mutual consent deserves to be considered by
this Court.
13. Since both the parties are living separately for the last
two years and they have been litigating with each other, statutory
period of six months as envisaged under Section 13B of the Act
for grant of divorce by way of mutual consent, can be waived,
especially when there is no possibility of rapprochement of the
parties and marriage has broken beyond repair. In this regard, it
would be apt to take note of the judgment rendered by the
Hon’ble Apex Court in Veena vs. State (Government of NCT of
Delhi) and another, (2011)14 SCC 614, wherein the Hon’ble
Apex Court has held as under:
12.” We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and
talked to the parties. The appellant has filed a divorcepetition under Section 13(1)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act,
1955, being HMA No.397/2008 which is pending before the
Court of Sanjeev Mattu, Additional District Judge,
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi. In the peculiar facts and
circumstances of this case, we deem it appropriate to
transfer the said divorce petition to this Court and take the
same on Board. The said petition is converted into one
under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act and we grant
divorce to the parties by mutual consent.”
15/11/2018 22:57:00 :::HCHP
12
14. Reliance is also placed on a judgment rendered by
Hon’ble Apex Court in Priyanka Khanna v. Amit Khanna, (2011)
.
15 SCC 612, wherein Hon’ble Apex Court has held as under:-
“7. We also see form the trend of the litigations pending
between the parties that the relationship between the
couple has broken down in a very nasty manner and thereis absolutely no possibility of a rapprochement between
them even if the matter was to be adjourned for a period of
six months as stipulated under Section 13-B of the Hindu
Marriage Act. 8. We also see from the record that the first
litigation had been filed by the respondent husband on2.6.2006 and a petition for divorce had also been filed by
him in the year, 2007. We therefore, feel that it would be in
the interest of justice that the period of six months should
be waived in view of the above facts.”
15. In the instant case also, statutory period of six months
deserves to be waived keeping in view the fact that the marriage
between the parties has broken beyond repair and there seems to
be no possibility of parties living together. The Hon’ble Apex
Court in Civil Appeal No.11158 of 2017 [arising out of Special
Leave Petition (Civil) No.20184 of 2017] titled as Amardeep
Singh vs. Harveen Kaur, decided on 12.09.2017, has held as
under:-
“13. Learned amicus submitted that waiting period
enshrined under Section 13(B)2 of the Act is directory and
can be waived by the court where proceedings are pending,
in exceptional situations. This view is supported by
judgments of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in K.
Omprakash vs. K. Nalini 10, Karnataka High Court in
Roopa Reddy vs. Prabhakar Reddy11, Delhi High Court in
Dhanjit Vadra vs. Smt. Beena Vadra12 and Madhya
Pradesh High Court in Dinesh Kumar Shukla vs. Smt.
Neeta13. Contrary view has been taken by Kerala High
15/11/2018 22:57:00 :::HCHP
13
Court in M. Krishna Preetha vs. Dr. Jayan 10 AIR 1986 AP
167 (DB) 11 AIR 1994 Kar 12 (DB) 12 AIR 1990 Del 146 13
AIR 2005 MP 106 (DB) Moorkkanatt14. It was submitted
that Section 13B(1) relates to jurisdiction of the Court and
.
the petition is maintainable only if the parties are living
separately for a period of one year or more and if they have
not been able to live together and have agreed that the
marriage be dissolved. Section 13B(2) is procedural. He
submitted that the discretion to waive the period is a
guided discretion by consideration of interest of justice
where there is no chance of reconciliation and parties were
already separated for a longer period or contesting
proceedings for a period longer than the period mentioned
in Section 13B(2). Thus, the Court should consider the
questions:
i) How long parties have been married?
ii) How long litigation is pending?
iii) How long they have been staying apart?
iv) Are there any other proceedings between the
parties?
v) Have the parties attended mediation/ conciliation?
vi) Have the parties arrived at genuine settlement
which takes care of alimony, custody of child or any
other pending issues between the parties?
14 AIR 2010 Ker 157
14. The Court must be satisfied that the parties were living
separately for more than the statutory period and all efforts
at mediation and reconciliation have been tried and have
failed and there is no chance of reconciliation and further
waiting period will only prolong their agony.
15. We have given due consideration to the issue involved.
Under the traditional Hindu Law, as it stood prior to the
statutory law on the point, marriage is a sacrament and
cannot be dissolved by consent. The Act enabled the court
to dissolve marriage on statutory grounds. By way of
amendment in the year 1976, the concept of divorce by
mutual consent was introduced. However, Section 13B(2)
contains a bar to divorce being granted before six months
of time elapsing after filing of the divorce petition by
mutual consent. The said period was laid down to enable
the parties to have a rethink so that the court grants
15/11/2018 22:57:00 :::HCHP
14
divorce by mutual consent only if there is no chance for
reconciliation.
16. The object of the provision is to enable the parties to
.
dissolve a marriage by consent if the marriage has
irretrievably broken down and to enable them to
rehabilitate them as per available options. The amendment
was inspired by the thought that forcible perpetuation of
status of matrimony between unwilling partners did not
serve any purpose. The object of the cooling off the period
was to safeguard against a hurried decision if there was
otherwise possibility of differences being reconciled. The
object was not to perpetuate a purposeless marriage or to
prolong the agony of the parties when there was no chance
of reconciliation. Though every effort has to be made to
save a marriage, if there are no chances of reunion and
there are chances of fresh rehabilitation, the Court should
not be powerless in enabling the parties to have a better
option.
17. In determining the question whether provision is
mandatory or directory, language alone is not always
decisive. The Court has to have the regard to the context,
the subject matter and the object of the provision. This
principle, as formulated in Justice G.P. Singh’s “Principles
of Statutory Interpretation” (9th Edn., 2004), has been
cited with approval in Kailash versus Nanhku and ors.15as
follows:
15 (2005) 4 SCC 480 “The study of numerous cases
on this topic does not lead to formulation of any
universal rule except this that language alone mostoften is not decisive, and regard must be had to the
context, subject-matter and object of the statutory
provision in question, in determining whether the
same is mandatory or directory. In an oft-quotedpassage Lord Campbell said: ‘No universal rule can
be laid down as to whether mandatory enactments
shall be considered directory only or obligatory with
an implied nullification for disobedience. It is the
duty of courts of justice to try to get at the real
intention of the legislature by carefully attending to
the whole scope of the statute to be considered.’ ”
‘For ascertaining the real intention of the legislature’,
points out Subbarao, J. ‘the court may consider inter
alia, the nature and design of the statute, and the15/11/2018 22:57:00 :::HCHP
15consequences which would follow from construing it
the one way or the other; the impact of other
provisions whereby the necessity of complying with
the provisions in question is avoided; the.
circumstances, namely, that the statute provides for
a contingency of the non-compliance with the
provisions; the fact that the non-compliance with the
provisions is or is not visited by some penalty; the
serious or the trivial consequences, that flowtherefrom; and above all, whether the object of the
legislation will be defeated or furthered’. If object of
the enactment will be defeated by holding the same
directory, it will be construed as mandatory, whereas
if by holding it mandatory serious generalinconvenience will be created to innocent persons
without very much furthering the object of
enactment, the same will be construed as directory.”
18. Applying the above to the present situation, we
are of the view that where the Court dealing with amatter is satisfied that a case is made out to waive
the statutory period under Section 13B(2), it can doso after considering the following :
i) the statutory period of six months specified
in Section 13B(2), in addition to the statutory
period of one year under Section 13B(1) of
separation of parties is already over before thefirst motion itself;
ii) all efforts for mediation/conciliation
including efforts in terms of Order XXXIIA Rule
3 CPC/Section 23(2) of the Act/Section 9 of theFamily Courts Act to reunite the parties have
failed and there is no likelihood of success inthat direction by any further efforts;
iii) the parties have genuinely settled their
differences including alimony, custody of child
or any other pending issues between theparties;
iv) the waiting period will only prolong their
agony.
19. The waiver application can be filed one week after the
first motion giving reasons for the prayer for waiver.
20. If the above conditions are satisfied, the waiver of the
waiting period for the second motion will be in the
discretion of the concerned Court.
15/11/2018 22:57:00 :::HCHP
16
21. Since we are of the view that the period mentioned in
Section 13B(2) is not mandatory but directory, it will be
open to the Court to exercise its discretion in the facts and
.
circumstances of each case where there is no possibility of
parties resuming cohabitation and there are chances of
alternative rehabilitation.”
16. Consequently, in view of the detailed discussion made
hereinabove, present appeal is allowed. Order dated 22.5.2018
passed by the learned District Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala in
HMA Case No. 09/III/2018 is quashed and set aside. Joint
petition filed by the parties under Section 13B(2) of the Hindu
Marriage Act is allowed. Marriage between the parties is ordered
to be dissolved by mutual consent. Registry is directed to draw a
decree of dissolution of marriage by mutual consent accordingly.
Terms and conditions contained in the settlement deed, referred
hereinabove, shall also form part of the decree. Needless to say,
both the parties shall abide by all the terms and conditions
contained in the settlement deed.
Pending applications, if any, are also disposed of.
(Sandeep Sharma)
Judge
November 13, 2018
(vikrant)
15/11/2018 22:57:00 :::HCHP