Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Rajesh Pratap Sainani vs. Mrs. Bhavna Rajesh Sainani 13B Petioner Rajesh Consent Peeche Hata, Case Dcided Against Him
Rajesh Pratap Sainani vs. Mrs. Bhavna Rajesh Sainani 13B Petioner Rajesh Consent Peeche Hata, Case Dcided Against Him
Bhavna rajesh sainani 13B petioner rajesh consent peeche hata, case
dcided against him
Smt. Jayashree Ramesh Londhe
Vs.
Respondent: Ramesh Bhikaji Londhe VV imp relavant fulyly cannot
withdraw concent and decree court ko dena is necessary
: Raj Rani
Vs.
Respondent: Roop Kumar
Smt. Sureshta Devi
Vs.
Respondent: Om Prakash 23 1 bb ??
Sandeep Kumar
Vs.
Respondent: Smt. Sonila Kumar
Issues :
Holding :
desertion
Now it is more than ten years that parties are living separately
FURTHER HELD,
(b) The parties in this case have lived separately for a long
spell of time. To be precise, it is 15 years and 9 months.
Appellant stayed in her matrimonial home for a very short
period less than eight months. She has admitted to have
refused to cohabit with the respondent. While replying during
cross-examination recorded in the form of questions and
answers, she has expressed her opinion that respondent would
not leave the company of two girls and not take her back. Thus,
all along she entertained a resolute stance in her subconscious
mind that the respondent was in an illicit relation with two
women and he would not take her back, which is not
corroborated by any evidence. - The material on record clearly
indicates that the appellant had willfully refused to
consummate the marriage, she had deserted the appellant and
thus inflicted upon him mental cruelty by depriving him of
conjugal pleasures. [17] and [19]
Case Note:
Hindu Marriage Act (XXV of 1955), Sections 13B, 21, 23 -
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), Order XXIII, Rule 1(5) --
One of the spouses whether can withdraw a joint petition
under Section 13B -- Consent for mutual divorce initially
given whether can be withdrawn at later stage -- At later
stage one party not wanting divorce whether relevant
circumstance under Section 13B.
When one spouse is not consenting to abandonment of a joint
petition for divorce filed under Section 13B of the Hindu
Marriage Act, 1955, the other party has no right either to
abandon that petition or withdraw that petition. One of the
spouses cannot withdraw a joint petition for divorce filed
under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act.
A reading of Section 13B would show that what is necessary
is that there should be a consent for mutual divorce at the
time when the petition is filed. If that consent is a free
consent of both the parties, it will not be possible for any of
them to nullify the petition by saying that though initially the
consent was voluntarily given, still the said party now
intends to withdraw it. Permission to withdraw consent
would nullify the very purpose of a joint application under
Section 13B.
When there is abundant evidence to show that at the time
when the joint application was made, the husband and the
wife had mutually agreed that marriage should be dissolved
and other requirements of Section 13B are proved, it would
be necessary for the Court to grant a decree for divorce. The
fact that at a later stage either party does not want a divorce
would be irrelevant.