Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Collector’s Appointment of Ex-Serviceman as Lambardar: Preference for Service to the State Valid Tax to Be Computed at 100% Under DTVSV Act, Rejects Inclusion of Belated Grounds in Disputed Tax: Bombay High Court Petitioner’s Father Did Not Fall Within Definition of Enemy – Kerala High Court Quashes Land Classification Under Enemy Property Act Calcutta High Court Upholds Cancellation of LPG Distributor LOI for Violating Guidelines Recording 'Reasons to Believe' is a Mandatory Safeguard, Not a Mere Formality Under PMLA: P&H High Court Illegality Is Incurable, Unauthorized Constructions Cannot Be Regularized: Bombay High Court Order XLI Rule 27 CPC | No Evidence Can Be Admitted Beyond Pleadings, And Additional Evidence Cannot Be Allowed Merely To Fill Lacunae: Jharkhand High Court Quashing | Mere Heated Exchanges Over Loan Repayment Do Not Constitute Abetment of Suicide: Supreme Court Prisoner Transfers Must Prioritize Security and Prevent Gang Violence: Supreme Court Restores Intra-State Transfer Order Jurisdiction Under Section 100 CPC Is Conditional Upon Framing Substantial Questions of Law: Supreme Court Panchayat Election | Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Bar on Judicial Review During Election Process Encroachment Allegation Requires Concrete Evidence, Not Mere Surmises: Bombay High Court Dismisses Plea for Disqualification of Sarpanch Order Denying Permission for Peaceful Protest Rally Set Aside: Calcutta High Court Prolonged Custody Alone Cannot Justify Bail In Cases Involving Heinous Crimes: Delhi High Court Body Shaming and Sexually Colored Remarks Are Unacceptable In A Civilized Society: Kerala High Court No Mandatory Injunction Where Failure to Prove Ownership and Possession: Punjab and Haryana High Court Supreme Court Dismisses Article 32 Petition Seeking Declaration of Bombay High Court Judgment as Illegal Specific Relief Act | Power to Extend Time Under Section 28 Is Discretionary and Must Be Exercised Prudently: Supreme Court

Allahabad High Court Stresses Flexibility in Divorce Cases, Highlights the Importance of Cooling-off Period

06 September 2024 5:46 AM

By: Admin


In a recent judgment, the Allahabad High Court, represented by Justice Jayant Banerji, has emphasized the significance of flexibility in divorce cases and the importance of the cooling-off period mandated by Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The case, which dealt with a matrimonial petition for the dissolution of a marriage, shed light on the need for courts to consider the unique circumstances of each case.

The judgment, delivered on 5th October 2023, revolved around a petition filed by Smt. Priya Gupta seeking to set aside an order passed by the Principal Judge of the Family Court, Kanpur Nagar. This order had rejected the application to waive the six-month cooling-off period in a divorce case involving mutual settlement between the parties.

Justice Jayant Banerji's observations underscored the court's role in ensuring that the legal process aligns with the realities faced by couples seeking divorce. He stated, "The time gap is meant to enable the parties to cogitate, analyze, and take a deliberated decision. The object of the cooling-off period is not to stretch the already disintegrated marriage, or to prolong the agony and misery of the parties when there are no chances of the marriage working out."

The judge referred to the landmark case of Amardeep Singh vs. Harveen Kaur and the recent Supreme Court judgment in Shilpa Sailesh vs. Varun Sreenivasan, both of which emphasized the court's discretion to waive the cooling-off period under exceptional circumstances. Justice Banerji further highlighted that "the waiver is not to be given on mere asking, but on the court being satisfied beyond doubt that the marriage has shattered beyond repair."

The case in question involved a marriage that lasted less than a month, with both parties mutually agreeing to dissolve it due to irreconcilable differences. A comprehensive compromise agreement had been reached between them, covering various aspects, and both parties claimed there were no children from the marriage.

Despite recognizing certain discrepancies in the Family Court's order, Justice Banerji chose not to interfere with it. However, he advised the parties to move an appropriate application before the Family Court to reconsider their case in light of the judgment's principles and the parties' genuine settlement.

This judgment from the Allahabad High Court underscores the need for a balanced approach in divorce cases, acknowledging the importance of upholding the law while considering the unique circumstances and the interests of the parties involved.

Date of Decision: 05 October 2023

Smt. Priya Gupta vs Harshvardhan Gupta   

Similar News