NIKHIL KUMAR Vs. RUPALI KUMAR

Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

Appeal (Civil), 4490 of 2016, Judgment Date: Apr 27, 2016

                                                              NON-REPORTABLE



                        IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
                        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION


                        CIVIL APPEAL No. 4490 OF 2016
                  (Arising out of SLP (c) No.12161 of 2016)


NIKHIL KUMAR                                                       Appellant

                                VERSUS

RUPALI KUMAR                                                      Respondent
                               J U D G M E N T


KURIAN,J.


1.    Leave granted.


2.    The appellant and respondent have filed the petition under Section 13-
B(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955  before  the  Family  Court  (Principal
Judge, Family Court, Tiz Hazari District Courts), Delhi.  The  parties  were
married on 07.02.2011 according to the customary  rights.  It  is  submitted
that they have not been able to workout their marriage as husband  and  wife
since day one.  For the last around five years, most of the time  they  have
been living separately and their marriage  reached  a  breaking  point  more
than a year back. Both the parties, after  giving  serious  thought  on  the
entire consequences of their decision, have taken a  conscious  decision  to
part and accordingly they have filed a petition before the Family Court  for
divorce on mutual consent on  29.03.2016.   The  Family  Court  granted  the
First Motion on 01.04.2016 and now, the matter is posted  in  the  month  of
October, 2016.

3.    The respondent has  made  a  travel  plan  to  move  to  New  York  on
29.04.2016 seeking a job and resettlement in life, after a  long  period  of
traumatic experiences of her married life as stated in the affidavit.

4.    In the above  circumstances,  the  appellant  has  filed  the  present
appeal praying for waving the six  months'  waiting  period  required  under
Section 13-B(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, invoking  our  jurisdiction
under Article 136 read with Article 142 of the Constitution of India.

5.    The respondent has appeared in person. She was  directed  to  file  an
affidavit before this Court. The respondent in the  affidavit  has  endorsed
the submission that they were not happy ever since their marriage  in  2011.
It is stated that with the set-back of a  broken  marriage,  the  respondent
needs a change in environment and thus, she has  proposed  to  move  to  New
York and it would be difficult for her  to  get  back  to  India  after  six
months or even in the near future.  It is further stated that both  of  them
have realized the consequences of their decision and  they  have  taken  the
decision out  of  their  free  will  and  without  any  undue  influence  or
coercion.

6.    Both the parties have appeared before the Court.   The  appellant  was
born in the year 1984, and is graduate in commerce. He is working as  senior
manager in a private firm. The respondent was born in the year 1982 and  she
also is a graduate.

7.    The respondent is scheduled to leave the country by 29.04.2016 and  it
is not possible for her to return to India within six months or in the  near
future, it is submitted.

8.    Having regard to the educational background of the appellant  as  well
as the respondent, and the entire facts and circumstances, we feel  that  it
is  a  very  peculiar  situation  where  this  Court   should   invoke   its
jurisdiction under Article 142  of  the  Constitution  of  India  for  doing
complete justice between the parties.  We do so.

9.    In the above circumstances, HMA No.272 of  2016  filed  on  29.03.2016
before the Ld. Principal Judge, Family Courts, Tiz Hazari  District  Courts,
Delhi under Section 13-B(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 is allowed.  The
statutory period of six months  is  waived  and  the  marriage  between  the
parties is dissolved.

10.   The Registry to communicate a copy of  this  judgment  to  the  Family
Court forthwith.

11.   The appeal is allowed as above.  No order as to costs.

                                                      …....................J
                                                             (KURIAN JOSEPH)


                                                      …....................J
                                                     (ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN)
NEW DELHI
APRIL 27, 2016