MOHIN SAILI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this appeal filed under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the Appellants seek to challenge the impugned order dated 11.11.2010, passed by the Family Court, whereby the application filed by the Appellants under Section 14 of the Hindu Marriage Act to seek waiver of one year period for presenting the joint divorce petition under Section 13(B) of the Hindu Marriage Act was dismissed.

(2.) The grounds taken by both the Appellants in the said application are that the Appellant No. 1 is working with the Bikanervala Food Pvt. Ltd as an Assistant Unit Manager in Delhi, while Appellant No. 2 is working with Qatar Airways, Doha, United Arab Emirates (UAE) as a Flight Attendant and both the parties could not live together for a day after solemnization of their marriage on 12.4.2010. It was also stated by them that their marriage was not consummated and both the parties realized that they are totally incompatible, having different mind sets, ambitions and career orientations. It was also stated that the Appellant No. 2 since is working with an Airlines in Doha, therefore, it is not possible for her to join her husband Appellant No. 1.

(3.) The learned Family Court after placing reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in Anil Kumar Jain v. Maya Jain, 2009 10 SCC 415, dismissed the said application moved by the Appellants. The learned Family Court held that requirement of Section 13B(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act is that before presentation of the divorce petition, the parties are required to live separately for a period of one year or more. The court further held that considering the fact that the marriage between the parties was solemnized on 12.4.2010, the statutory period of one year did not come to an end on the day of the presentation of the said petition, therefore, the parties were held not entitled for the grant of exemption of statutory requirement as envisaged under Section 13B(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act. Feeling aggrieved with the said order, both the parties have preferred the present appeal.