Amardeep Singh v. Harveen Kaur

Facts

The parties married in 1994 and had two children. They had lived separately since 2008, and disputes between them led to civil and criminal proceedings. On 28 April 2017 they settled all disputes, agreeing on permanent alimony of Rs. 2.75 crores and custody of the children with the husband. They filed a petition for divorce by mutual consent before the Family Court, Tis Hazari, New Delhi, where their statements were recorded on 8 May 2017. Since they had been separated for more than eight years with no chance of reunion, they sought waiver of the six month period before the second motion and approached the Supreme Court, believing that only it could relax that period. The Court found that Manish Goel v. Rohini Goel barred use of Article 142 against the statute, and appointed an amicus curiae to examine whether Section 13B(2) is mandatory.

Questions before the Court

1. Whether the minimum period of six months stipulated in Section 13B(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for the second motion in a divorce by mutual consent is mandatory or can be relaxed in exceptional situations.
2. Whether the Supreme Court should use Article 142 of the Constitution to waive that period when it is approached only for that purpose.

What the Court held

• Since Manish Goel v. Rohini Goel holds the field, the power under Article 142 cannot be exercised contrary to statutory provisions, especially where no proceedings are pending before the Supreme Court and it is approached only to waive the statute.
• The six month period in Section 13B(2) is not mandatory but directory. Its object is to guard against a hurried decision where differences may be reconciled, not to perpetuate a purposeless marriage or prolong the parties' agony.
• The court dealing with the matter may waive the period if: the six months, in addition to the one year of separation under Section 13B(1), is already over before the first motion; all efforts at mediation and conciliation have failed; the parties have genuinely settled alimony, custody and other issues; and waiting will only prolong their agony.
• The waiver application can be filed one week after the first motion, giving reasons. If the conditions are met, waiver is in the discretion of the court.
• The court may use video conferencing and may permit genuine representation of the parties through close relations such as parents or siblings where they cannot appear in person for a just and valid reason.
• The parties were left at liberty to move the concerned court for fresh consideration in the light of the judgment.

Why it matters

The judgment allows the family court or other court hearing a mutual consent divorce petition to waive the six month cooling off period under Section 13B(2), so that parties need not approach the Supreme Court under Article 142 for that purpose. It lays down four conditions for waiver, a timeline for the application, and permits video conferencing and representation through close relations.

In the Court's words

Copied from the official judgment; each passage links to its page.

Provisions interpreted

• Section 13B, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
• Article 142, Constitution

Related judgments

• Followed in Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan (2023)

Case and bench

Parties

Amardeep Singh v. Harveen Kaur

Case

Civil Appeal No. 11158 of 2017 (arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 20184 of 2017)

Decided

12 September 2017

Bench

Adarsh Kumar Goel, Uday Umesh Lalit

Opinions

Judgment of the Court delivered by Adarsh Kumar Goel, J., signed also by Uday Umesh Lalit, J. No separate opinion.

Questions on this case

4 questions in live Law Maker papers mention this case. A few from free papers:

1. Question 1 · Hindu Law Practice Set 1

   In Amardeep Singh v. Harveen Kaur (2017), the Supreme Court held that the minimum period of six months stipulated in Section 13B(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955:

   1. A. applies only where the spouses have a minor child
   2. B. is mandatory, and no court can waive it in any case
   3. C. is directory, and the court may waive it in a fit case
   4. D. may be waived only by the Supreme Court under Article 142
   Show the answer

   C. is directory, and the court may waive it in a fit case

   Amardeep Singh v. Harveen Kaur (2017) held that the six-month period in Section 13B(2) HMA is not mandatory but directory, so the court dealing with the matter may waive it where the circumstances justify it.

2. Question 2 · Hindu Law Practice Set 1

   Consider the following statements about the waiver of the period under Section 13B(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, as explained in Amardeep Singh v. Harveen Kaur (2017): 1. The court may consider whether the one-year separation under Section 13B(1) and the six-month period under Section 13B(2) are already over before the first motion. 2. Only the Supreme Court, under Article 142, may dispense with the six-month period. 3. The court may consider whether the parties have genuinely settled their differences, including alimony and custody of any child. Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

   1. A. 2 and 3 only
   2. B. 1 and 3 only
   3. C. 1 and 2 only
   4. D. 3 only
   Show the answer

   B. 1 and 3 only

   Amardeep Singh v. Harveen Kaur (2017) listed, among the considerations for waiver, whether the statutory periods of separation are already over before the first motion, whether mediation and conciliation have failed, whether the parties have genuinely settled their differences including alimony and custody, and whether waiting would only prolong their agony. The waiver can be granted by the court dealing with the petition, not only by the Supreme Court.