LCI Learning

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

Swami Sadashiva Brahmendra Sar (Nil)     29 May 2010

Waiting period for divorce by consent

A two judge Bench of Supreme Court has refused to grant divorce to a  couple before the mandatory six-month gestation period, despite both parties agreeing to part ways through mutual consent and the husband offering his spouse a Rs 65-lakh settlement.

Matter has been referred to C JI  for constituting a 3-judge Bench to decide the question of law “whether the period prescribed in sub-section (2) of Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, can be waived or reduced by this court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution?


 2 Replies


1. In my understanding Law making process is business of Legislature and not of Hon'ble SC ! Correct me if I am wrong in my interpretation.

2. A State HC just after announcement of that famous SC's Maya Jain MCD under Art. 142 COI judgment granted MCD to a couple who settled their differences and since their divorce case was going on from years. The reason cited by State HC was that they already filed Divorce some X years ago and when they have settled their all differences then it is no point to keep them binding. I hv already quoted this citation here some time ago which may be referred to and that HC judgment is better than above quoting Sir.

3. Tell me Sir is keeping a opposite polarity couple into matrimonial bonds not cruelty "perpetuated' by Hon'ble SC in the name of Law making business? What we badly need in Indian Divorce laws of any sects / religion is amendment of Section and adding NO FAULT Theory based granting of Divorce instead of "FAULY Theory currently in practice which takes ages to get decided and when a couple comes for MCD then abvoe citing of SC happens so it is better to keep contesting "FAULY Theory based divorce.

4. Tell me Sir, why there is huge differences of opinion into simple Personal Law interpretation by State HC lordships and Hon'ble SC lordships? Are they from totally different schools of thoughts overlooking Mayanes to Mullas to late Prof. Paras Deewan to changing Socital times ?

5. Will keeping this cited case couple binded another 6 months going to reduce that settled (on paper white alimony) Rs. 65 Lakhs NO ? Infact it will increase as this case seems to be of one of those high profile cases and this is nothing but "legal extortion perpertrated" by most Hon'ble lordships of our most Hon'ble SC is what general public feels.

6. If there is irreconcilable differences between couple and they already are engaged into several acrimonious litigation and at a particular time during litigation they think to settle their differences there should be quick way out for them before one of them changes mind as no point keeping them bonded together and unnecessary create backlog of more cases and inturn allow them to utilise more of court time into their already dead relationship status is my opinion. It is like giving Decree (framed) to a dead couple postmonously. 

7. Take a case of divorce (filed by wife) is going on in trial court from last 4 years, in starting wife asked 30 Lakhs then came down in mediation to 15 Laks recently to 7 Lakhs and very recently to Zero amount. No interim maint under S. 125 nor under S. 24 decided by Court in 4 years time nor any prime facie maint. Decided even in DV suit recently filed by MM court. The funny part is that Court is figuring out our HMA / GWA Jurisdiction after 4 years to push this dead case to make it like a North Pole Star and atleast I am struck now at a stage when we have agreed for MCD then also Court wants us to agree to its terms, for what I am still to discover, that end result more litigation piling between us. It is sorry state of interpretation of simple personal law coupled with couples present needs of the day nothing else.


SHARAD CHANDRA DANEJ (Asstt. Manager)     29 May 2010

Dear Shri Arun Kumar,

You are absolutely right when the couple is mutually agreed to depart then why 6 months waiting. Maybe the court thinks otherwise TIME IS GREAT HEALER. Keeping this view, 6 mths gap is mantatory. 


S C Danej

Leave a reply

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register  

Popular Discussion

view more »

Post a Suggestion for LCI Team
Post a Legal Query