Granting No-Fault Divorce in Contested Cases: A Case Commentary on Mutual Consent
Emphasising upon the need for contemporary approach to be taken in today’s marriages , Mr. Harish Kumar, the Principal Judge of the Family Court at Patiala House Court in New Delhi, has made a commendable decision by extending the relief under section 13-B even when procedural formalities were not meticulously followed. He has delivered a comprehensive 89-page judgment affirming that under section 10 of the family court act, the court holds the authority to waive the formal requirements of section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act. In the matter of Sumit Jain V. Shraddha Gupta , considering the specific facts and circumstances , the court decided not to delve into determining fault between the husband and wife for the dissolution of their marriage. Instead, the court dissolved their marriage under section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act . The court treated the mutual allegations of fault as an implicit consent from both parties to dissolve their marriage.Consequently, the marriage was dissolved from the date of the decree.
Upon reviewing Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, the court determined that all necessary elements for granting a divorce by mutual consent were present, except for the formal procedural requirements. The essential criteria under Section 13-B includes a) Living separately for a year or more b) An inability to live together, and c) Mutual agreement to dissolve the marriage, albeit through their respective petitions.
The facts and circumstances of this case clearly indicated the need for a more compassionate and practical approach to divorce, one that could accommodate the intricacies of modern relationships and offer a way out for couples who, like these bank officials, simply wanted to end their marriage with dignity and minimal conflict and without playing any blame games. Such kind of authority is applicable in cases where the parties have lived separately for more than a year, are unable to reconcile their differences, clearly express their unwillingness to cohabit, and jointly seek the dissolution of their marriage. This insightful judgment by the family court judge acknowledges the need to provide relief for those trapped in unhappy marriages, reflecting a sensible understanding of modern relationship dynamics.
The question arises as to Why should the family courts uniformly not adopt the practical and progressive approach demonstrated in this judgment? What is the need to escalate such matters to higher forums when parties to a marriage are embroiled in severe matrimonial discord, marked by grave allegations and no hope of reconciliation and also when insisting on proving fault before granting a divorce only prolongs their suffering. This refusal not only perpetuates unnecessary suffering but also leads to law-induced mental cruelty.
Differences of opinion and disagreements are frequently misrepresented as acts of cruelty. Until genuine efforts are made by society and the legislature to address these issues, the judiciary must continue to devise ways to respond to these grave situations. Adopting a practical and humane approach, as seen in this judgment, can alleviate the suffering of those trapped in unhappy marriages and reflect a modern understanding of relationship dynamics.
