No parties can be influenced to take divorce by mutual consent

Must Read

Himachal Pradesh High Court Supports Promotion Based on Seniority of Post Rather Based on the Eligibility Test

In the case of Ramesh Chand Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Others, the petitioner, reached the court as...

NCDRC Dismisses PIL against Urologist, Holy Family Hospital, Says Mode Of Treatment Or Skill Differs From Doctor To Doctor

The National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (NCDRC) dismissed a petition against Holy Family Hospital and a Urologist, alleging negligence...

Himachal Pradesh High Court Disposes Suit for Possession and Permanent Prohibitory Injunction Due To Mutual Consent

In the case of Parveen Kumar vs Smt. Vijay Laxmi and Ors, the Petitioner, Parveen had filed a suit for declaration,...

Supreme Court Appoints Committee To Examine Arbitrariness of Sealing of Resorts in Elephant Corridor, Tamil Nadu

A Full Bench headed by the Chief Justice of India, in the matter of Hospitality Association of Mudumalai V. In...

Madhya Pradesh High Court Rules That Export Ban on N95 Masks & PPE Kits Does Not Violate Fundamental Right of Traders

The Madhya Pradesh High Court held that the formulation and regulation of trade policies were within the subjects of...

Delhi High Court Issues Notice To Two Pleas Filed Praying for Recognition of Same-Sex Marriage

The Court heard two writ petitions which urged that the Special Marriage Act and the Foreign Marriage Act be...

Follow us

Hindus after coming into force of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 can seek to put an end to their marriage by either obtaining a declaration that the marriage between them was not valid on the grounds (a person already has a spouse at the time of marriage, within prohibited degree of relationship, couples are not sapindas of each other) or other provision of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

Divorce through Mutual Consent

Under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 both the husband and the wife have been given a right to get their marriage dissolved by a decree of divorce on more than one grounds specifically enumerated in Section 13.

Section 13-B (divorce by mutual consent) makes provision for divorce by mutual consent on the ground that

  • Both the parties to the marriage have been living separately for a period of one year or more.
  • They have not been able to live together.
  • They have now mutually agreed for the dissolution of the marriage.

Couples might find incompatibility between them and might file a petition of divorce by mutual consent. It is a novel approach but, at times, a situation arises where divorce by mutual consent becomes difficult.

E.g. Where a husband tries to bargain on the conditions of divorce or times where wife out of conspiracy marries a person and demands big price for giving divorce through mutual consent (mostly involved with cases of 498A).

In Yanmnaji H. Jadhav v. Nirmala, the Supreme Court has observed that the customary divorce by mutual consent is not recognisable by a court unless specifically permitted by law because in personal law customary divorce being an exception to the general law of divorce, ought to have been pleaded and established by party propounding such customs.

In Tarun Kumar Vaish v. Meenakshi Vaish, the court observed that both parties appear to be mature, independent and fully committed even after a passage of about 8 months from the date of filing of the petition to Part Company. Thus, even after a passage of about 11 months from the date of the marriage, the parties are firm in their resolve to dissolve the marriage. Thus it is not a hasty decision to seek a divorce but the decision is a mature and a well-considered one and has not been arrived at under any external influence.

In Suit. Siislwm Prawod Taksmide v. Pramod Ramaji Taksmide, wife challenged decree of divorce by mutual consent on the ground that her signatures on divorce petition and affidavits were obtained under false pretext and there was no separation for a period of one year. After considering the fact court held that while subordinate courts passing the decree of divorce by mutual consent, the court has to be satisfied that consent was not obtained by force, fraud or undue influence.

Necessary points to be noted

The requirements for seeking divorce by mutual consent are:

  • Petition for divorce has to be presented to the district court by both the parties to a marriage supported by affidavits of both the parties;
  • The parties should have been living separately for a period of one year or more;
  • The parties could not adjust with each other and had not been able to live together;
  • There should be a mutual request by both the parties to a marriage to dissolve the marriage.

Judgement

The trial court can make such enquiry as it thinks fit, including examining parties for that purpose and if it is satisfied that the consent of the parties was not obtained by force, fraud or under influence and they mutually agreed for dissolution of marriage the trial court must pass a decree of divorce.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

Himachal Pradesh High Court Supports Promotion Based on Seniority of Post Rather Based on the Eligibility Test

In the case of Ramesh Chand Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Others, the petitioner, reached the court as he was aggrieved by the...

NCDRC Dismisses PIL against Urologist, Holy Family Hospital, Says Mode Of Treatment Or Skill Differs From Doctor To Doctor

The National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (NCDRC) dismissed a petition against Holy Family Hospital and a Urologist, alleging negligence in diagnosing the septicemia and...

Himachal Pradesh High Court Disposes Suit for Possession and Permanent Prohibitory Injunction Due To Mutual Consent

In the case of Parveen Kumar vs Smt. Vijay Laxmi and Ors, the Petitioner, Parveen had filed a suit for declaration, possession and a permanent prohibitory...

Supreme Court Appoints Committee To Examine Arbitrariness of Sealing of Resorts in Elephant Corridor, Tamil Nadu

A Full Bench headed by the Chief Justice of India, in the matter of Hospitality Association of Mudumalai V. In Defence of Environment and Animals...

Madhya Pradesh High Court Rules That Export Ban on N95 Masks & PPE Kits Does Not Violate Fundamental Right of Traders

The Madhya Pradesh High Court held that the formulation and regulation of trade policies were within the subjects of the Central Government. Any reasonable...

Delhi High Court Issues Notice To Two Pleas Filed Praying for Recognition of Same-Sex Marriage

The Court heard two writ petitions which urged that the Special Marriage Act and the Foreign Marriage Act be interpreted to also apply to...

Supreme Court Allows Appeal Challenging Allahabad High Court Order Granting Interim Bail on Medical Grounds

An appeal was filed before the Supreme Court, challenging the Judgment & Order of the Allahabad High Court in the matter of State of U.P...

Bombay High Court Allows Petition Seeking Lawyers and Legal Clerks To Travel in Local Trains

The present hearing arose out of a batch of Public Interest Litigations that was filed in the Bombay High Court to permit the members...

Provisions for Retirement of Teachers Must Be Read With the Larger Interest of Students in Mind: Supreme Court

Supreme Court in Navin Chandra Dhoundiyal v State of Uttarakhand reinstated the appellants to their position as Professor on basis of re-employment till the...

Parties Cannot Deny Specific Performance Merely Due To Delay: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court, in Ferrodous Estate v P Gopirathnam, revisited the law on the specific performance of a contract. It reiterated that mere delay...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -