{"id":259172,"date":"2021-12-28T12:00:05","date_gmt":"2021-12-28T06:30:05","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=259172"},"modified":"2021-12-28T10:16:01","modified_gmt":"2021-12-28T04:46:01","slug":"family-court-grants-divorce-by-mutual-consent-under-s-13-b-where-parties-refuse-to-cohabit-and-resolve-disputes","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/12\/28\/family-court-grants-divorce-by-mutual-consent-under-s-13-b-where-parties-refuse-to-cohabit-and-resolve-disputes\/","title":{"rendered":"Family Court grants divorce by mutual consent under S. 13-B where parties refuse to cohabit and resolve disputes"},"content":{"rendered":"

Family Court, Ahmednagar: <\/strong>Netra A Kank, J., allowed a petition granting a decree of divorce by mutual consent to the petitioners.<\/p>\n

The instant petition was filed by the petitioners for mutual divorce as per Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act.<\/p>\n

Factual Matrix<\/span><\/h4>\n

Marriage of the petitioners took place on 12-8-2009 and resided together till 1-1-2020. Due to the dispute between the petitioners, petitioner 2 started residing separately from petitioner 1.<\/p>\n

Relatives of the petitioners tried to resolve the dispute, but the same was not resolved and due to the dispute, the petitioner did not cohabit and petitioner 1 filed PA No. 46 of 2021 against petitioner 2 for restitution of conjugal rights.<\/p>\n

In view of the above parties sought divorce.<\/p>\n

The matter was initially referred to the counsellor for settlement and as per the counsellor reconciliation was not possible and both of them agreed to divorce by mutual consent.<\/p>\n

Points for consideration:<\/span><\/h4>\n

Whether petitioners 1 and 2 are entitled to divorce by mutual consent as per provisions of Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act?<\/p>\n

Analysis, Law and Decision<\/span><\/h4>\n

In the present matter, several affidavits were filed by the petitioners to show that several efforts of reconciliation between the petitioners were made but the same was not possible. The Bench noted that as per the affidavits, petitioners were agreeable to divorce by mutual consent.<\/p>\n

Court also observed that petitioner 2 had waived all her rights of present and future maintenance from petitioner 1. Parties also agreed that the son and daughter of the parties shall be in the custody of petitioner 1 ad petitioner 2 would have the rights to take children for overnight access for two days every week.<\/p>\n

Hence, petitioners were entitled to divorce by mutual consent. [X v. Y, Petition F \u2013 250 of 2021, decide don 30-11-2021]<\/p>\n

\n

Advocates before the Court:<\/strong><\/p>\n

Mayur P. Salunke and Ajinkya P. Salunke, Advocates<\/p>\n

\n

Additional Reading:<\/span><\/h4>\n

Husband and Wife separated for more than 1 year. Will 6 months period be waived, if divorce is sought mutually under S. 28 of Special Marriage Act? Pune Family Court decides<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n