Family Court No. 3, Pune: M.R. Kale, J., addressed a petition for divorce by mutual consent under Section 28 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 and granted the same noting the difference of opinion and incompatibility of petitioner’s temperament.
Instant petition was filed by the petitioners for dissolving their marriage by a divorce decree by mutual consent under Section 28 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954.
Factual Background
Marriage between the two petitioners was solemnized before the Marriage Officer at Pune as per the provisions of the Special Marriage Act. Due to differences of opinion and incompatibility of temperament, both the petitioners have not been able to live together.
Petitioners with mutual consent filed for divorce.
Question for Consideration
Whether the present matter is a fit case for granting a decree of divorce by mutual consent under Section 28 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954?
Analysis, Law and Decision
Petitioners filed an application for waiving of a statutory period of 6 months.
It was noted that the petitioners were separated since 26-4-2019. Thus, the parties had already undergone a period of separation for more than 18 months, therefore it was not necessary to keep them further waiting for 6 months.
In view of the above, Bench waived off the 6 months period contemplated under Section 28 of the Special Marriage Act.
In the affidavits submitted by the petitioners, they mentioned that petitioner 2 has waived her right of maintenance from petitioner 1. Petitioners won’t have any claim on each other movable or immovable property along with this no dispute regarding the stridhan and articles.
Adding to the above, both the petitioners mentioned in their affidavits that they cannot live together and their consent for divorce was voluntary.
Court allowed the petition and the petitioners marriage was dissolved by a decree of divorce under Section 28 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 in view of the difference of opinion and incompatibility of the petitioner’s temperament due to which they would not be able to live together and a happy married life together. [X v. Y, Petition No. F 1468 of 2021, decided on 29-9-2021]
Advocates before the Court:
For petitioners 1 and 2: Mayur and Ajinkya P. Salunke
