Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the six-month period prescribed under Section 13B(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for the second motion in a mutual-consent divorce petition is mandatory or directory, and whether it can be waived in exceptional cases.
Analysis: The statutory scheme of Section 13B shows that the first motion requires one year of separation and mutual consent, while the second motion after six months serves as a cooling-off period to permit reflection and reconciliation. The object of the provision is not to perpetuate a dead marriage, but to avoid a hurried dissolution where reconciliation remains possible. Applying the settled approach that statutory language must be read in context, with regard to the subject matter and purpose of the enactment, the Court held that the provision is procedural and that discretion may be exercised where the parties have already lived separately for a substantial period, all efforts at mediation and conciliation have failed, the settlement is genuine and complete, and the waiting period would only prolong hardship.
Conclusion: The six-month period under Section 13B(2) is directory, not mandatory, and the concerned court may waive it in appropriate cases satisfying the indicated conditions.
Ratio Decidendi: A statutory cooling-off period in mutual-consent divorce proceedings is directory where the legislative purpose is already fulfilled and further waiting would only defeat genuine settlement and prolong the parties' suffering.