Supreme Court Waives Six-Month Waiting Period for Divorce by Mutual Consent: Amit Kumar vs. Suman Beniwal (2021)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 11 December 2021
Citation: 2021 INSC 747
Judges: Indira Banerjee, J. and J. K. Maheshwari, J.

Can a couple, who have mutually decided to end their marriage, be forced to wait six months before they can get a divorce? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question, focusing on the interpretation of Section 13B(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, which mandates a six-month waiting period for divorce by mutual consent. This case, Amit Kumar vs. Suman Beniwal, explores whether this waiting period is mandatory or if it can be waived under certain circumstances. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice Indira Banerjee and Justice J.K. Maheshwari.

Case Background

The case involves Amit Kumar, an IPS officer, and Suman Beniwal, an IFS officer, who married on 10th September 2020 according to Hindu rites. Unfortunately, their marriage was short-lived, as they separated just three days later on 13th September 2020, due to irreconcilable differences. After being separated for over a year, they filed a petition for divorce by mutual consent under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, on 30th September 2021. They also sought a waiver of the six-month waiting period stipulated under Section 13B(2) of the Act, to expedite the divorce process.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The Family Court, Hissar, rejected the couple’s plea to waive the six-month waiting period, citing the guidelines laid down in Amardeep Singh v. Harveen Kaur. The Family Court stated that since the couple had not completed 18 months of separation before their first motion, the waiver could not be granted. Subsequently, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana also dismissed the Civil Revisional Application filed by the couple, affirming the Family Court’s decision. The High Court held that while the six-month waiting period is directory, the condition of 1 ½ years of separation before the first motion was not met, thus the waiver could not be granted.

Legal Framework

The case revolves around the interpretation of the following sections of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955:

• Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, deals with divorce by mutual consent. It states:

  “(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act a petition for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce may be presented to the district court by both the parties to a marriage together, whether such marriage was solemnised before or after the commencement of the Marriage Laws (Amendment) Act, 1976 (68 of 1976)*, on the ground that they have been living separately for a period of one year or more, that they have not been able to live together and that they have mutually agreed that the marriage should be dissolved.
  (2) On the motion of both the parties made not earlier than six months after the date of the presentation of the petition referred to in sub-section (1) and not later than eighteen months after the said date, if the petition is not withdrawn in the meantime, the court shall, on being satisfied, after hearing the parties and after making such inquiry as it thinks fit, that a marriage has been solemnised and that the averments in the petition are true, pass a decree of divorce declaring the marriage to be dissolved with effect from the date of the decree.”

• Section 14 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, states that no petition for divorce can be presented within one year of marriage. However, it also provides a proviso that allows the court to permit a petition before one year has elapsed in cases of exceptional hardship to the petitioner or exceptional depravity on the part of the respondent.

These provisions reflect the legislature’s intent to protect the institution of marriage while also providing a means for couples to end their marriage amicably when it has irretrievably broken down.

Arguments

The primary contention in this case was whether the six-month waiting period under Section 13B(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, is mandatory or directory. The Family Court and the High Court had interpreted the judgment in Amardeep Singh v. Harveen Kaur to mean that the six-month waiting period could only be waived if the parties had already been separated for at least one and a half years before the first motion. The Appellant argued that the six-month period is directory and not mandatory, and that the court has the discretion to waive it when there is no possibility of reconciliation. The respondent did not present any arguments as they had mutually agreed to the divorce.

The arguments can be summarized as follows:

The innovativeness of the appellant’s argument lies in challenging the rigid interpretation of the guidelines in Amardeep Singh v. Harveen Kaur, emphasizing the directory nature of the six-month waiting period, and highlighting the need for judicial discretion based on the specific facts of each case.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame specific issues in a numbered list, but the core issue before the Court was:

• Whether the six-month waiting period stipulated under Section 13B(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, is mandatory or directory, and if directory, under what circumstances can it be waived.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Court clarified that the guidelines in Amardeep Singh v. Harveen Kaur [ (2017) 8 SCC 746 ]* were illustrative and not exhaustive and that the six-month waiting period was directory, not mandatory.
• The Court relied on Devinder Singh Narula v. Meenakshi Nangia [(2012) 8 SCC 580]* to invoke its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to do complete justice in irreconcilable situations.
• The Court used Soni Kumari v. Deepak Kumar [(2016) 16 SCC 346]* as an example where the Court exercised its power under Article 142 to waive the statutory waiting period.
• The Court referred to Anil Kumar Jain v. Maya Jain [(2009) 10 SCC 415]* to reiterate that the Supreme Court can grant relief without waiting for the statutory period by exercising its extraordinary powers under Article 142.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily driven by the need to do complete justice and to prevent the prolongation of agony for couples who have mutually decided to end their marriage, with no possibility of reconciliation. The Court emphasized that the purpose of the six-month waiting period was to allow time for reconciliation, but when reconciliation is not possible, the waiting period becomes meaningless and only serves to delay the inevitable. The Court also considered the unique circumstances of the case, where both parties were educated, highly placed individuals who had been separated for a significant period, with no hope of reunion.

Logical Reasoning:

Key Takeaways

• The six-month waiting period under Section 13B(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, for divorce by mutual consent is directory, not mandatory.
• Courts have the discretion to waive the waiting period if there is no possibility of reconciliation and the waiting period would only prolong the agony of the parties.
• The guidelines in Amardeep Singh v. Harveen Kaur are illustrative and not exhaustive.
• The Supreme Court can exercise its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to do complete justice by waiving the waiting period.
• The length of separation, efforts at reconciliation, and the overall circumstances of the case are relevant factors in considering a waiver.

Directions

The Supreme Court, in this case, exercised its power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to grant the Appellant and the Respondent a decree of divorce by mutual consent under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, waiving the statutory waiting period of six months under Section 13(B)(2) of the said Act.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the six-month waiting period under Section 13B(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, is directory and not mandatory. This clarifies the position of law and provides that courts have the discretion to waive this period in appropriate cases, especially where there is no possibility of reconciliation. This decision affirms the principle that the law should not be interpreted in a rigid manner that causes unnecessary hardship to the parties. This judgment reinforces the view that the intention of the law is to facilitate the dissolution of marriage when it has irretrievably broken down, and not to prolong the agony of the parties involved.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s judgment in Amit Kumar vs. Suman Beniwal provides a significant clarification on the interpretation of Section 13B(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The Court held that the six-month waiting period is directory, not mandatory, and can be waived in cases where there is no possibility of reconciliation. This decision ensures that couples who have mutually decided to end their marriage are not subjected to unnecessary delays, and it reinforces the principle that the law should be interpreted in a manner that promotes justice and avoids prolonging the agony of the parties.

Category

Parent Category: Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

Child Categories:

• Section 13B, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
• Divorce by Mutual Consent
• Waiver of Waiting Period
• Article 142, Constitution of India

FAQ

Q: What is the six-month waiting period for divorce by mutual consent?

A: Section 13B(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, stipulates that after filing a petition for divorce by mutual consent, the parties must wait at least six months before making a motion for the court to pass a decree of divorce.

Q: Is this waiting period mandatory?

A: No, according to the Supreme Court’s judgment in Amit Kumar vs. Suman Beniwal, the six-month waiting period is directory, not mandatory. This means that the court has the discretion to waive it under certain circumstances.

Q: When can the court waive the waiting period?

A: The court can waive the waiting period if it is satisfied that there is no possibility of reconciliation between the parties and that the waiting period would only prolong their agony. Factors such as the length of separation, efforts at reconciliation, and the overall circumstances of the case are considered.

Q: What does “directory” mean in this context?

A: In legal terms, “directory” means that a provision is not strictly binding and that the court has some discretion in its application. In contrast, a “mandatory” provision must be strictly followed.

Q: What is the significance of Article 142 in this case?

A: Article 142 of the Constitution of India empowers the Supreme Court to pass any order necessary to do complete justice in a case. In this case, the Court used this power to waive the waiting period and grant a decree of divorce by mutual consent.

Q: What should a couple do if they want to get a divorce by mutual consent quickly?

A: Couples seeking a quick divorce by mutual consent should file a petition under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and then apply for a waiver of the six-month waiting period. They should provide reasons for the waiver and demonstrate that there is no possibility of reconciliation. The court will then exercise its discretion based on the facts of the case.