PARSHOTAM LAL Vs. SURJEET KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DECREE of divorce granted by the Trial Court by mutual consent under section 13b (2) of the Hindu Marriage Act is under challenge in the present appeal.

(2.) BRIEF facts for deciding the present appeal inter-alia are that the appellant husband and the respondent wife jointly filed a petition under section 13b (1) of the Hindu Marriage Act on 4th August, 2007 and the said petition was registered as HMA case No. 656/2007. The learned Trial Court heard both the parties on the same date after recording statement of the parties and first motion as envisaged under Section 13b (1) HMA Act was allowed. Thereafter the parties had moved application under Section 151 cpc seeking waiver of six months period so as to enable them to file the second motion as envisaged under Section 13b (2) of the Hindu Marriage act. The said waiver application moved by the parties was allowed and on the second motion respective statements of the parties were recorded and the matter was heard by learned Trial Court whereafter order under Section 13b (2) of Hindu Marriage Act was passed thereby dissolving the marriage between the parties by decree of divorce by mutual consent.

(3.) IN the present appeal the said judgment and decree dated 8. 8. 2007 passed by the learned Trial Court of Shri Gulshan Kumar, Additional district Judge, Delhi in HMA No. 682/2007 is under challenge by the appellant husband. The main grievance raised by the appellant husband in the present appeal is that the judgment and decree has been passed by the learned Trial Court in undue haste without affording any sufficient opportunity to the appellant. The other grievance raised by the appellant is that due to the grant of waiver of six months period the appellant was not able to apply his mind and think over the matter before taking any final decision on the second motion and therefore, the appellant has been deprived of the statutory period as provided under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage act and due to deprivation of the said period there is not only miscarriage of justice but the order itself cannot sustain being illegal.