Butuna Swain 11 July 2019
Tony Dash 11 July 2019
Laxmi Kant Joshi (Advocate ) 11 July 2019
Ranjeet Moharana 21 August 2025
Ranjeet Moharana, Advocate
1999 Supreme(MP) 441
1999 2 DMC 769
S.B. Sakrikar, J.
Nayankumar
vs
Smt. Karuna
DECIDED ON : 12 July, 1999
The central legal point established is that when parties mutually consent to dissolve a marriage due to irreconcilable differences, the court may grant a decree of divorce under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
Subject: Family Law - Divorce
Act Referred :
HINDU MARRIAGE ACT : S.13(b)
Divorce - Mutual Consent - The court allowed the appeal and granted a decree of divorce on mutual consent under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant filed a petition for divorce under Section 13B of the Act on the grounds of cruelty and adultery. The trial court dismissed the petition, and the appellant filed an appeal. During the appeal, both parties filed an application for divorce by mutual consent.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that due to differences between the parties, reconciliation was not possible, and it was in the interests of the parties to dissolve the marriage by a decree of divorce on mutual consent.
Issues: The issues involved the grounds for divorce and the subsequent application for divorce by mutual consent.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the statements of the parties and the period of separation, concluding that reconciliation was not possible and granted the decree of divorce on mutual consent.
Final Decision: The appeal and the applications for divorce by mutual consent were allowed, and the marriage between the parties was dissolved by a decree of divorce on mutual consent under Section 13B of the Act.
JUDGMENT
S.B. Sakrikar, J.
1. Unsuccessful appellant/petitioner has directed this appeal against the judgment dated 23rd September, 1997 rendered by IX ADJ, Indore in Hindu Marriage Case No. 50/96, thereby dismissing the petition filed by the appellant/petitioner for grant of decree of divorce against the respondent on the grounds mentioned under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short 'the Act').
2. The facts not in dispute are that the parties are Hindus and they are husband and wife. Their marriage was solemnized on 15.6.1994 at Indore under the Hindu Customs and Religions. The appellant and respondent after their marriage lived together at Indore as husband and wife but due to some differences, parties are living separately since 15th December, 1994. The appellant has filed petition before the Trial Court for grant of decree under Section 13B of the Act on the grounds of cruelty and adultery. The petition was contested on behalf of the respondent. Learned ADJ, on evaluating the evidence adduced by the parties, dismissed the petition filed by the appellant. Aggrieved, the appellant has filed this appeal under Section 28 of the Act.
3. During pendency of this appeal in this Court, both the parties on 2.12.1998 filed I.A. No. 6229/98 under Section 13B of the Act and prayed for passing a decree of divorce by mutual consent. The application was directed to be listed for consideration after the expiry of six months' period as required under Section 13B of the Act. After expiry of the said period parties have filed IA No. 3010/99 on 1.7.1999, application in continuation of the previous application under Section 13B of the Act. Both the aforesaid applications have been considered together and the statements of the parties are also recorded.
4. Both the parties in their statements have categorically stated that due to differences between them they have separated after their marriage and living separately since last 4-5 years. During this period they have no marital relations between them. Parties have stated that due to differences existing between the parties since last 4-5 years, reconciliation is not possible. As such by mutual consent they have decided to dissolve marriage by a decree of divorce on the ground of mutual consent.
5. On perusal, it emerged that the original petition for divorce was filed by the appellant before the Trial Court in the year 1996.I.A. No. 6229/ 98 under Section 13B of the Act was filed before this Court during pendency of the appeal on 2.12.1998 and subsequent application under the same Provision, I.A. No. 3010/99 was again filed on 1.7.1999. The period of more than six months has gone after filing of the first petition seeking a decree of divorce by a mutual consent under Section 13B of the Act. After passing of the said period, from the statements of the parties recorded in this Court, I am satisfied that due to differences arose between the parties, reconciliation is not possible and in view of the facts and circumstances of the case on hand, it is in the interests of the parties to allow the petition filed under Section 13B of the Act and dissolve the marriage by a decree of divorce on mutual consent.
6. Consequently, this appeal and I.A. Nos. 6229/98 and 3010/99 are allowed and the marriage between the parties stands dissolved by a decree of divorce on mutual consent under Section 13B of the Act. There shall be no orders as to costs. Decree be drawn up accordingly
Thomas 27 August 2025
Hello,
Here’s the precise procedure for mutual divorce in Bhubaneswar: mcdvoice
1. Joint Petition: Both spouses file a joint petition in Family Court stating separation for over a year and mutual agreement to divorce.
2. Terms Finalized: Alimony, child custody, and asset division must be clearly agreed upon and documented.
3. First Motion: Court records statements and grants a 6-month cooling-off period.
4. Second Motion: After 6 months (or earlier if waived), both appear again to confirm intent.
5. Decree Granted: If satisfied, the court issues the divorce decree.
No witnesses are required. Presence of both parties is mandatory at hearings.
Best Regards,
Thomas Henry
Ranjeet Moharana 29 August 2025
Advocate Ranjeet Moharana- 9938190055
Mutual divorce under Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, can be granted by courts in Bhubaneswar (or elsewhere in India) provided the parties fulfill the statutory requirements, particularly mutual consent, living separately for at least one year, and the court's satisfaction regarding the authenticity of the agreement. The process involves filing a joint petition, a mandatory waiting period of six months (which can sometimes be waived), and the court's inquiry into the genuineness of the consent and the conditions prescribed.
Key Points
Detailed Analysis and Legal Framework for Mutual Divorce
du Marriage Act, 1955, provides for divorce by mutual consent under Section 13B. The key requirements include:
The parties are married and have been living separately for a minimum of one year ("ANUP DISALVA VS UNION OF INDIA, REP. BY SECRETARY - 2022 0 Supreme(Ker) 920(https://supremetoday.ai/doc/judgement/01500052691)").
They mutually agree to dissolve the marriage ("Jaswinder Singh VS Jasvir Kaur - 2014 0 Supreme(P&H) 1394(https://supremetoday.ai/doc/judgement/02300056618)", Nayankumar VS Smt. Karuna - 1999 0 Supreme(MP) 441(https://supremetoday.ai/doc/judgement/02700021418)").
The joint petition must state that the marriage has broken down irretrievably, and reconciliation is unlikely ("Aravind R. D/o Rajendran vs Anu Vidya Rajendran S/o Rajendran - 2025 0 Supreme(Ker) 1262(https://supremetoday.ai/doc/judgement/01500057072)").
The court’s role is to ensure that the consent is voluntary, free from coercion or fraud, and the conditions are satisfied ("Neena Bhatnagar VS Bhaskar Mani - 2011 0 Supreme(Kar) 701(https://supremetoday.ai/doc/judgement/00300028387)", Pallavi Rai VS Ankit Sood - 2024 0 Supreme(UK) 293(https://supremetoday.ai/doc/judgement/02600015171)").
Procedure and Judicial Interpretation and the petition is filed jointly by both spouses.
The court conducts a limited inquiry to verify the facts, including separation duration and mutual consent ("ANUP DISALVA VS UNION OF INDIA, REP. BY SECRETARY - 2022 0 Supreme(Ker) 920(https://supremetoday.ai/doc/judgement/01500052691)", Neena Bhatnagar VS Bhaskar Mani - 2011 0 Supreme(Kar) 701(https://supremetoday.ai/doc/judgement/00300028387)").
The mandatory cooling-off period of six months can be waived in exceptional cases where the marriage has irretrievably broken down ("Saroja Kumar Mohanty And Anr. VS Family Court - 2021 0 Supreme(Ori) 417(https://supremetoday.ai/doc/judgement/02200036224)", Minakshi Gupta vs Kailash Chandra - 2025 0 Supreme(All) 2306(https://supremetoday.ai/doc/judgement/02500149967)").
The court can also entertain the petition before the expiry of one year of separation if circumstances justify, and in some cases, even waive the waiting period ("Om Prakash Yadav VS Lali - 2005 0 Supreme(Raj) 2089(https://supremetoday.ai/doc/judgement/01700003243)", Saroja Kumar Mohanty And Anr. VS Family Court - 2021 0 Supreme(Ori) 417(https://supremetoday.ai/doc/judgement/02200036224)").
Once satisfied, the court passes a decree of divorce, dissolving the marriage ("ANUP DISALVA VS UNION OF INDIA, REP. BY SECRETARY - 2022 0 Supreme(Ker) 920(https://supremetoday.ai/doc/judgement/01500052691)", Arun VS State of Uttarakhand - 2024 0 Supreme(UK) 14(https://supremetoday.ai/doc/judgement/02600015347)").
Judicial Precedents Supporting Mutual Divorce
Several judgments affirm that mutual consent divorce is permissible and that the court can waive the statutory waiting period if the marriage has irretrievably broken down ("Jaswinder Singh VS Jasvir Kaur - 2014 0 Supreme(P&H) 1394(https://supremetoday.ai/doc/judgement/02300056618)", Aravind R. D/o Rajendran vs Anu Vidya Rajendran S/o Rajendran - 2025 0 Supreme(Ker) 1262(https://supremetoday.ai/doc/judgement/01500057072)", Om Prakash Yadav VS Lali - 2005 0 Supreme(Raj) 2089(https://supremetoday.ai/doc/judgement/01700003243)").
The courts have also held that the consent must be maintained till the decree, and if one party withdraws consent before the final order, the petition can be dismissed ("Neena Bhatnagar VS Bhaskar Mani - 2011 0 Supreme(Kar) 701(https://supremetoday.ai/doc/judgement/00300028387)").
The Supreme Court has clarified that the procedure under Section 13B is not mandatory in the sense that it cannot be bypassed if the marriage is beyond repair ("Suresh S. , S/o. late Siddaiah VS Lakshmi, W/o Suresh S. - 2021 0 Supreme(Kar) 988(https://supremetoday.ai/doc/judgement/00300049502)").
Application to Bhubaneswar
The legal principles are uniform across India, including Bhubaneswar, as the Hindu Marriage Act is a central legislation.
Courts in Bhubaneswar follow the same judicial precedents and procedural rules established nationally.
The recent judgments and legal provisions support the possibility of granting mutual divorce in Bhubaneswar based on the same criteria.
Exceptions and Limitations
Mutual divorce cannot be granted if the parties are not living separately for at least one year, unless the court waives the period due to exceptional circumstances ("Arpit Garg VS Ayushi Jaiswal - 2019 0 Supreme(All) 1525(https://supremetoday.ai/doc/judgement/02500105085)").
If consent is withdrawn before the decree, the petition can be dismissed ("Neena Bhatnagar VS Bhaskar Mani - 2011 0 Supreme(Kar) 701(https://supremetoday.ai/doc/judgement/00300028387)").
The court cannot bypass the mandatory procedures unless specific legal provisions or extraordinary circumstances apply (e.g., waiver of the waiting period).
Recommendations
Parties seeking mutual divorce in Bhubaneswar should ensure they have been living separately for over one year.
They should file a joint petition with clear, truthful averments regarding their separation and mutual consent.
If the marriage has irretrievably broken down and there are compelling reasons, they may request the court to waive the six-month waiting period.
Legal counsel should verify that all procedural requirements, including proper affidavits and settlement terms, are satisfied to avoid dismissal of the petition.
In case of disputes or withdrawal of consent, parties should be prepared for possible dismissal or contestation.
References
1. Saroja Kumar Mohanty And Anr. VS Family Court - 2021 0 Supreme(Ori) 417(https://supremetoday.ai/doc/judgement/02200036224): Supports the court's authority to waive the six-month cooling-off period in exceptional cases.