TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (5) TMI 1270
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd and wife, are seeking dissolution of their marriage by consent under section 10­A(1) of Divorce Act 1869 (for short 'The said Act'). 3. The brief facts are that the marriage between the petitioners was solemnized on 12th June 2013 and the same was registered in accordance with the provisions of the said Act at Mumbai. Shortly after the marriage, i.e. on 23rd June 2013 irreconciliable differences arose between the petitioners and they decided to get their marriage dissolved by mutual consent. It is undisputed that petitioner no.2/wife shifted out of the matrimonial home on 23rd June 2013 and since then there is no co­habitation as the petitioners have been staying separately. It appears that the petitioners approached the Famil....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the Keral High Court in the case of Saumya Ann Thomas v/s. The Union of India [(2010 (1) KLT 869; ILR 2010 (1) Kerala 805] in which a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court, faced with a similar challenge, has held that the provisions contained in Section 10­A(1) of the said Act to the extent they provide that the parties were to stay separately for a period of two years before filing a petition for dissolution of marriage by mutual consent, offends the mandate of right to equality and the right to life under Article 14 and Article 21 of the Constitution of India. However, in order to save the provisions from the vice of unconstitutionality, it was held that the period of two years stipulated in Section 10­A(1) of the said Act,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rties. It is submitted by Shri Rodriques, the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent that the Union of India has not challenged the decision of the Keral High Court in the case of Shiv Kumar V/s. Union of India and others (Supra). 9. It is a matter of record that the petitioners were married on 12th June 2013 and on account of irreconciliable differences they are staying separately since 23rd June 2013. Indisputably, the petition before the Family Court was filed after a period of one year from 23rd June 2013. The Indian Divorce Act 1869 came into force on 1st April 1869. The said Act was amended by introduction of Section 10­A w.e.f. 3rd October 2001 which reads as under:­ "10A. Dissolution of marriage by mu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....utual consent, offends Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, inasmuch as similar provisions contained in Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, Section 32B of the Parsi Marriage and Divorce Act and Section 28 of the Special Marriage Act provide for a minimum separation for one year. The Division Bench of the Kerala High Court, while upholding the challenge, allowed the petition, in the following terms: "(a) This Writ Petition is allowed. (b) The stipulation in Section 10A(1) of the Divorce Act that the spouses must "have been living separately for a period of two years or more" is declared to be unconstitutional as the stipulation of the period of "two years" therein violates the fundamental rights to equality a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to the Constitutional validity of Section 10A of the Act would have effect throughout the territory of India. Accepting the said contention, the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court had allowed the petition, thereby dissolving the marriage under Section 10A of the said Act. 12. In Kusum Ingots & Alloys Limited (supra), the appellant, which was a company having its registered office at Mumbai, had obtained a loan from the Bhopal Branch of the State Bank of India. The second respondent therein had issued a notice for repayment of the said loan, from Bhopal, purportedly under the provisions of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 ('Act of 2002' for short). The....