Shalini Verma v. Sanjeev Kapoor

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L.N. MITTAL Present : Mr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. **** L.N. MITTAL, J (ORAL) C.M. No.30199-CII of 2012 Application is allowed as prayed for. CR No. 7286 of 2012 In this revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenge is order dated 23.11.2012 (Annexure P-4) passed by learned District Judge, Chandigarh thereby dismissing the application moved by petitioner Shalini Verma and respondent Sanjeev Kapoor for waiver of the waiting period of six months for dissolution of their marriage by decree of divorce by mutual consent in their petition filed under Section 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (in short, 'the Act'). Both the parties (wife and husband) have filed joint petition under Section 13-B of the Act seeking dissolution of their marriage by decree of divorce by mutual consent. Their statements on first motion CR No.

7286 of 2012 (O&M) 2 (Annexures P-1 and P-2) were recorded on 16.10.2012 and the case was adjourned to 16.04.2013 for second motion hearing. In the meantime, the parties moved application for waiving of the waiting period of six months on the ground that the wife petitioner has been offered appointment by a company and according to appointment letter, she has to get her matrimonial dispute resolved before joining the service. The said application has been dismissed by the matrimonial court vide order (Annexure P-4), which is under challenge in this revision petition. I have heard counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file. Counsel for the petitioner reiterated that it is a case of hardship for the petitioner because she has to get the matrimonial dispute resolved before joining service pursuant to offer of appointment letter (Annexure P-3) and, therefore, waiting period of six months should be waived.

I have carefully considered the contention, but the same cannot be accepted. Section 13-B of the Act mandates waiting period of six months before granting divorce by mutual consent. In the said provision, waiting period of six months is mandatory. In view of the said mandatory provision, the court by granting waiver of the waiting period cannot violate the letter and sprit of law. There is also a reason for prescribing this waiting period. It affords an opportunity to the parties to reconsider and rethink over their matrimonial ties and to take well considered conscious decision before snapping the matrimonial ties forever. This waiting period is also, therefore, called cooling off period. In India, particularly among Hindus to whom the Act is applicable, marriage is not a contract but is a sacrosanct CR No. 7286 of 2012 (O&M) 3 relationship. According to our customs and traditions, marriage is a relationship not between two persons only but also it is a knot of relationship between two families.

In this background, waiting period of six months has been provided so that effort may be made again to save the marriage. It is also worth mentioning that according to appointment letter (Annexure P-3), it is only advisable for the petitioner to resolve her matrimonial dispute but it is not a condition precedent for the petitioner to join her service that she should get the matrimonial dispute resolved prior to it. Consequently, the petitioner may join her service and may appear on the second motion hearing for giving her consent to divorce whenever convenient to her and not necessarily on 16.04.2013. If for some reason or exigencies of her service, she may not be available on that date, in that situation, she may come for second motion hearing a little later whenever it is convenient for her to come. Therefore, it also cannot be said to be a case of extreme hardship to the petitioner. For the reasons aforesaid, I find that there is no provision or discretion for waiver of the waiting period of six months.

Application moved by the parties in the trial court has been rightly dismissed. There is no perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned order of the trial court so as to call for interference by this Court in exercise of power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The revision petition lacks any merit and is accordingly dismissed in limine.

6.12.2012 Anand ( L.N. MITTAL ) JUDGE