IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

(Order XXI Rule 3(1)(a))

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION
(Under Article 136 of the Constitution of India)

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C.) NO. OF 2017

(Against the Interim impugned Order dated 09.12.2016 passed by the

Ld. Additional District Judge, Amritsar in HMA No.132/3908 of
2016)

IN THE MATTER OF: -

REENA TALWAR ….PETITIONER

VERSUS

RAJEEV TALWAR ....RESPONDENT

PAPER – BOOK
(FOR INDEX-KINDLY SEE INSIDE)

ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER: PRAMOD DAYAL

 INDEX OF PAPERS

S.NO.PARTICULARS PAGE No.

1. Office Report on Limitation A

2. Listing Performa A1-A2

2. Synopsis & List of Dates B-

3. Interim Order 09/12/2016

passed by Additional District Judge,
in HMA No. 132/3908 of 2016.

4. Special Leave Petition with Affidavit

5. APPENDIX
Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

6. ANNEXURE-P/1

True Copy of the Compromise Deed

Dated 09.12.2016 executed between
Petitioner and Respondent.
 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C.) NO. OF 2017

IN THE MATTER OF: -

REENA TALWAR ….PETITIONER

VERSUS

RAJEEV TALWAR ....RESPONDENT

OFFICE REPORT ON LIMITATION

1. The petition is within time.

2. There petition is barred by time and there is delay

of ___ days is filing the same against order date _____-

and petition for condonation of days delay has neen filed.

3. There is delay of days in refilling the petition and

petition for condonation of days delay in refilling

has been filed.

BRANCH OFFICER
NEW DELHI
Dated:
 PROFORMA FOR FIRST LISTING

SECTION-XIV

The case pertains to( Please tick/check the correct box):

 Central Act: (Title) N.A

 Section: N.A

 Central Rule: (Title) N/A

 Rule No(s): N/A

 State Act (title) N/A

 Section: N/A

 State Rule: (Title) N/A

 Rule No(s): N/A

 Impugned Interim order: (Date) 09.12.2016

 Impugned Final Order/Decree: (Date):NA

 High Court: (Name): ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, AMRITSAR

 Names of Judge: LD.MS. RAJNI CHHOKRA

 Tribunal/Authority: N/A

1. Nature of matter: Civil Criminal

2. (a) Petitioner/appellant:REEMA TALWAR

(b)e-mail ID: advsurabhi@gmail.com

(c) Mobile phone number:

(a) Respondent :RAJEEV TALWAR
(b) e-mail ID: N/A
(c) Mobile phone number:N/A

3. (a) Main Category Classification: 18 ORDINARY CIVILMATTER

 (b) Sub classification: 1807

4. Not to be listed:N/A
5. Similar/Pending matter:NA
6. Criminal Matters:NA

Whether accused/convict has surrendered: Yes No

(a) FIR No. NA Date:NA
(b) Police Station: NA
(c) Sentence Awarded: N/A
(d) Sentence Undergone: N/A

7. Land Acquisition Matters:

(a) Date of Section 4 notification:N/A
(b) Date of Section 6 notification:N/A
(c) Date of Section 17 notification:N/A

8. Tax Matters: State the tax effect:N/A

9. Special Category (first petitioner/appellant only):NA

Senior Citizen ≥ 65 years SC/ST Woman/child Disabled
Legal Aid case In custody

10. Vehicle Number (in case of Motor Accident Claim Matters:N/A

11. Decided cases with citation:N/A

AOR for the petitioner(s)/appellant(s)

(Name): PRAMOD DAYAL

Registration No.: 500

EMAIL: pdayal.adv@gmail.com

New Delhi

Dated:
 SYNOPSIS &LIST OF DATES

It is submitted with great respect that the petitioner is filing the

instant Special Leave Petition against the impugned interim order

dated 09.12.2016 passed by the Ld. Additional District Judge,

Amritsar in HMA No. 132/3908 of 2016whereby the Ld. ADJ has

allowed the petition under section 13-B (1) of the Hindu Marriage

Act, 1955 as there has been irretrievable breakdown of marriage

between the petitioner and respondent and thus the Hon’ble Supreme

Court has the power under article 142 of the Constitution of India to

grant divorce by waiving the statutory period of six months as is

required by section 13 B (2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. (Kindly

refer to Anil Kumar Jain versus Maya Jain (2009) 10 SCC 415).

It is further submitted with great respect that the petitioner beg

to prefer this humble petition invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction

of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India under article 136 read with

section 142 of the Constitution of India because of the peculiar and

extraordinary circumstances which have given rise to the present

petition.

20.02.2006 That the marriage of the petitioner and the

Respondent was solemonized at Delhi as per

 Hindu rites and ceremonies. The marriage

was duly consummated at Delhi.

14.11.2009 That out of the said wedlock of the parties

one baby girl namely Trisha was born who

is presently in custody of the petitioner.

October 2014 Thatrelation between the petitioner and

respondent turned sour and hostile in the

initial months of marriage which thereafter

survived on the edge due to the intervention

of parents and close relatives.The relation

was for namesake and without any love and

affection for each other, however the pious

knot of this on and off relation opened in the

month of October 2014 when both the

parties started living under separate roof and

since October 2014 both the parties are not

in contact with each other.

09/12/2016 That the petitioner and respondent reached a

compromise and agreed to dissolve their

marriage by a decree of divorce by mutual

consent vide a settlement cum dissolution

deed for marriage dated 09.12.2016 was

executed between the petitioner and

respondent. By virtue of the settlement deed

 it was agreed between the parties that the

minor child will remain in the custody of

petitioner and the respondent will have

visitation rights for twice a month to meet

the minor and all their claims viz. present,

past and future were settled against each

other.

09/12/2016 That there being no chance of living

together and even the efforts of the family

members and friends have gone in vain, the

parties as per settlement cum dissolution

deed for marriage dated 09/12/2016, decided

to get divorce by mutual consent and thus

the Ld. Additional District Judge, Amritsar

in HMA No. 132/3908 of 2016 passed the

order in the First Motion of the petition and

called the parties to appear on 12.07.2017

for the second motion.

However the said court of Ld. ADJ,

Amritsar has no power to grant waiver of 6

months cooling period for petition under

section 13-B(2) of the Hindu marriage Act,

1955 which the petitioner needed for the

underneath reasons and therefore the

 petition for passing the second motion to

obtain a decree of divorce can now only

come up after the statutory period of six

months i.e. 12/02/2017 and not before.

(True copy of the order passed by the Ld.

ADJ, Amritsar in HMA No. 132/3908 of

2016 in petition u/s. 13 B (1) of the Hindu

Marriage Act, 1955 titled as ReemaTalwar

Versus Rajeev Talwar” is enclosed herewith

as Annexure ‘P-1’).

__________ Hence this Special Leave Petition.

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(Order XVI Rule 3(1)(a))
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C.) NO. OF 2017

IN THE MATTER OF: -

Position of parties

Family CourtIn this Court

ReenaTalwar Petitioner No. 1 Petitioner

W/o Rajeev Talwar
D/o Vipan Malik
R/o 41, Avtar Avenue,
Amritsar.

VERSUS

Rajeev Talwar Petitioner No. 2 Respondent

S/oGulshan Kumar Talwar,
R/o B 1055, 1st Floor, Right Portion
Green Field Colony, Faridabad,
Haryana.

TO
THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA AND HIS
OTHER COMPANION JUDGES OF THE SUPREME
COURT OF INDIA

THE HUMBLE PETITION OF THE

PETITIONER ABOVENAMED

MOST RESPECTFULLYSHOWTH: -
1. The petitioner above named respectfully submits this petition

under Article 136 of the Constitution of India seeking Leave to

Appeal against the impugned order dated 09.12.2016 passed by

the Ld. ADJ, Amritsar in HMA No.132/3908 of 2016in the

petition titled as “ReemaTalwar Versus Rajeev Talwar” vide

which the Hon’ble court allowed the petition under section 13-

B(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for obtaining divorce by

mutual consent. However the said court has no power to waive

the statutory period of 6 month provided under section 13-B(2)

of the Hindu marriage Act, 1955 and therefore the petitioner is

aggrieved.

2. The petitioner has filed the SLP against the above order dated

09.12.2016 passed by Ld. ADJ, Amritsar in HMA No.

132/3908 of 2016 directly before the Hon’ble Supreme Court

because the Hon’ble Court has in Anil Kumar Jain versus Maya

Jain (2009) 10 SCC 415 held that only the Hon’ble Supreme

Court has the power under Article 142 of the Constitution of

India to grant divorce by waiving of the statutory period of six

months as required under section 13-B(2) of the Hindu

Marriage Act, 1955.

3. QUESTIONS OF LAW:

A. Whether in the facts and circumstances of this case this Hon’ble

court ought to waive the 6 months statutory period provided

 under section 13-B(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 in

exercise of its power and jurisdiction under Article 142 of the

Constitution of India?

B. Whether this Hon’ble court further ought to waive the statutory

period of 6 months between the petition under section 13-B of

the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 in view of the fact that there has

been irretrievable break down of marriage between the

petitioner and the respondent? AND

C. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the waiver of 6 months

statutory as provided under section 13-B(2) of the Hindu

Marriage Act, 1955 in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble

Court in Anil Kumar Jain versus Maya Jain (2009) 10 SCC

415?

3. DECLARATION IN TERMS OF ORDER XXI RULE: 3(2)

The Petitioner state that no other petition seeking leave to

appeal has been filed by her against the impugned Judgment

and order dated 09.12.2016.

4. DECLARATION IN TERMS OF ORDER XXI RULE : 5

The annexure produced alongwith the SLP are the certified

copies of the pleadings/documents which formed part of the

records of the case in the Court below against whose order the

leave to appeal is sought for in this petition.

5. GROUNDS :

The Leave to appeal is sought for on the following grounds.

A. For the marriage between the petitioner and the Respondent

was solemonised as per Hindu rites and ceremonies on

20/02/2006. Out of the said wedlock a baby girl namely Trisha

Talwar was born on 14th November 2014 whose custody is with

the petitioner.

B. For the marriage between the Petitioner and Respondent has

broken down irretrievably with no chance of reconciliation at

all.

C. For the Petitioner and the Respondent they last lived together as

husband and wife only for around 8 years however the marriage

had break down at the early stage of marriage which survived

on the edge for the rest of their namesake married life. The

petitioner and respondent had survived their matrimonial

together due to intervention of parents, close ones and

respectable persons of the society and despite several efforts

they could not live ever as true husband and wife and their

relation stood for the society. The petitioner and respondent had

lived separately under one roof as strangerswhich affected the

life of parties and the minor as well.

 It is pertinent to mention here that the Petitioner and the

Respondent have been living separately since October 2014 and

since then there has no contact whatsoever with each other at all

and neither of party is least interested to live with each other as

the temperamental differences has touched new heights and

there exists no scope of reconciliation between the parties.

D. For the Petitioner and the Respondent who had already entered

into a Settlement cum Dissolution Deed for Marriage on 09 th of

December 2016 had reached a compromise whereby the

Petitioner and Respondent mutually decided to get separate

from each other as due to the temperamental differences

unending and indefinite cracks had emerged in their marriage

which already survived on the edge since its beginning and

therefore the parties by virtue of this settlement deed mutually

agreed to dissolve their marriage by a decree of divorce by

mutual consent in terms of the said Settlement Cum Dissolution

Deed For Marriage.

E. For in terms of the said compromise, the Petitioner and

respondent mutually agreed that the custody of the minor girl

Trisha Talwar will remain with the petitioner and the

respondent will have visitation rights for twice a month. The

petitioner further settled all her claims with regard to alimony

for past, present and future. It was further mutually agreed

 between the parties who are having the flat bearing no. B-1055,

First Floor, Right Portion, Green Filed Colony, Faridabad,

Haryana which is jointly in the name of both the parties holding

equal shares and the petitioner out of her above share will

relinquish her 50% share in the above property and will transfer

the same in the name of their minor daughter.

F. For the petitioner who is not in a position to face further trauma

and daily tension and is willing to begin their life as fresh in all

new environments and further considering the life and interest

of her daughter the waiver of this statutory period is direly

required.

G. For the court of Ld. ADJ, Amritsar was pleased to allow the

petition under section 13-B(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

vide order dated 09.12.2016 however the Ld. ADJ has no power

to grant waiver of 6 months period for filing petition under

section 13-B(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 which petition

can now be presented only on 12.07.2017 and not before the

said date.

H. That Petitioner and the Respondent have pulled the institution

of marriage for around 8 years, however the matrimonial life of

the parties has gone off the track within the early months of the

marriage itself and the remaining period till date remained full

of turbulence. Both the parties had then started living separately

 since October 2012 and since then they are having no contact

with each other at all as no scope of conciliation exists.

I. For petitioner and the respondent have been living separately

since December 2014 and the marriage of the Petitioner and the

Respondent has broken down irretrievably and there is no scope

of resumption of cohabitation as husband and wife.

J. For, in the facts and circumstances of the case, this Hon’ble

Court ought to waive of the statutory period of 6 months

provided under section 13-B(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act,

1955 in exercise of its inherent power and jurisdiction under

article 142 of the Constitution of India as only this Hon’ble

Court has the power to exercise the said jurisdiction.

K. For, this Hon’ble Court has in Devinder Singh Narula versus

MeenakshiNangia, AIR 2012 SC 2890 waived of the statutory

period of 6 months in somewhat similar facts and circumstances

of the case where the parties to the marriage have been living

separately for more than a year.

L. For, if the period of 6 months is not waived of, it will cause

undue anxiety, trauma and prejudice not only to the petitioner,

but also the respondent.

The parties have already arrived at a settlement in respect

of everything including maintenance and istridhan etc. and

 nothing remains between them except the “Divorce

Proceedings”.

M. For, the Petitioner and the Respondent are young individuals

and it will be in the interest of justice and also in the interest of

the future of young parties, if this Hon’ble Court exercises its

power under article 142 of the Constitution of India to do

complete justice and waive the statutory period of 6 months as

provided under section 13-B(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act,

1955 and grant divorce to the Petitioner and the Respondent.

6. GROUNDS FOR INTERIM RELIEF.

In the facts and circumstances of the case above there is

no requirement/circumstances of any interim relief, and

therefore, the same is not pleaded for.

7. MAIN PRAYER:

It is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased

to:

A) Grant Special Leave to Petitioner under Article 136 of the

Constitution of India to prefer an appeal in this Hon’ble Court

against the impugned Judgment and Order dated 09.12.2016

passed in HMA No. 132/3908 of 2016 by the court of Ld.

Additional District Judge, Amritsar; and

B). Pass such other or further orders as this Hon'ble Court may

deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

8. PRAYER FOR INTERIM RELIEF.

No interim relief has been prayed for, but this Hon’ble Court

can always pass such other order(s) and/or direction(s) as this

Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and

circumstances of the case,

AND FOR THE ABOVE ACT OF KINDNESS THE PETITIONER

AS IN DUTY BOUND SHALL EVER PRAY.

DRAWN BY : FILED BY:

Puneet Singh &SurabhiArora Mr.PramodDayal

( ADVOCATES) (ADVOCATE)

DRAWN ON:
FILED ON:
 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C.) NO. OF 2016
IN THE MATTER OF: -

RAMANDEEP SINGH …..….PETITIONER

Versus

KANWALDEEP KAUR …….….RESPONDENT

CERTIFICATE

Certified that the Special Leave Petition is confined only to the pleadings

before the Court whose order is challenged and the documents relied upon

in those proceedings. No additional facts, documents or grounds have been

taken or relied upon in the Special Leave Petition. It is further certified that

the copies of the documents/annexures attached to the Special Leave

Petition are necessary to answer the questions of law raised in the Petition

or to make out grounds urged in the Special Leave Petition for the

consideration of this Hon’ble court. This Certificate is given on the basis of

the instructions given by the person authorised by the Petitioner whose

affidavit is filed in support of the SLP.

FILED BY

Puneet Singh
&SurabhiArora
ADVOCATE FOR PETITIONER

DRAWN ON:
FILED ON:
 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C.) NO. OF 2016
IN THE MATTER OF: -

REENA TALWAR ….PETITIONER

VERSUS

RAJEEV TALWAR

....RESPONDENTAFFIDAVIT

I, ReemaTalwarage 31 years W/o Sh. Vipan Malik, R/o Avtar Avenue,

Amritsar, do hereby solemnly affirmand state as under:

1. That I the attorney of petitioner, am fully conversant with the

facts and circumstances of the above case, hence fully
competent to swear this affidavit.
2. That I say that I have read and understood the contents of the
accompanying Petition from page to List of Date page from
page to and applications. I say the facts stated therein are true
and correct to my knowledge and belief.
3. That the annexures filed herewith are true copies from their
respective originals.

DEPONENT

VERIFICATION
Verified at Delhi on this __thday of March, 2017. I, the above
named deponent, do hereby verify that the contents of the above
affidavit are true and correct. No part of it is false and nothing
material has been concealed therefrom.

DEPONENT