Case Analysis: Manish Goel v/s Rohini Goel

Introduction

Marriage as a social institution is an affirmation of the civilized social order in which two people who are capable of being married have committed to upholding the institution’s norms and values and vowed to one another a solid bond to uphold and preserve the marriage’s obligations. It serves as a symbol of the persistence of the human race.

Despite the pledge and promises, there are times when personal incompatibilities, attitude differences based on egocentric perceptions of situations, maladjustment phenomena, or a propensity for non-adjustment or refusal for adjustment emerge, forcing both parties to adopt intolerable positions that abdicate personal responsibility and foster superiority complexes and betrayal of trust, revenge and lot of another issue which led to the dissolution of the marriage.

The respective family court judge took a different approach to this case, which was brought by the spouse seeking a divorce. Because there hasn’t been an impediment to the administration of fairness or inequality to the parties that have to be rectified, this court may give equitable relief. There are no issues of wide public interest raised by the petition. The situation at hand has been brought to our attention and may compel this bar to use its exceptional administration under Article 142 of the Constitution.

Facts of the Case

The petitioner, the wife’s husband, was a doctor by trade, while the respondent-wife held the CA, CS, and ICWA credentials. On July 23rd, 2008, the couple exchanged vows in the city. After the wedding, their relationship immediately deteriorated, and as of October 24th, 2008, they were living apart. The husband initiated an annulment of a marriage lawsuit pursuant to Section 12¹.

The woman, Rohini Goel, filed a petition under Section 12² r/w Section 23³ of the Domestic Violence Act of 2005. She also filed an FIR under Sections 498-A, 306, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code against her husband and his family (IPC). The parties went into a contract after being persuaded by friends and family.

Composition ahead the Mediation Centre, urban centre by that they united to settle all their disputes dissolve the marriage. The parties requested a divorce by mutual consent in an appeal under Section 13-B (1)⁴ of the Act that was submitted to the court. The parties subsequently submitted a second application to waive the required six-month window for filing the second petition. The court, however, turned down the identical application. Consequently, this petition was presented to the Supreme Court.

Issues

1. Whether the arbitrary judiciary time specified in Section 13-B (1) of the Act is mandatory or optional, and if mandatory, whether it can be waived even by the High Court in the exercise of its writ/appellate jurisdiction?
2. Is the six-month waiting period required by section 13B (2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, mandatory in the case of a request to award a divorce based on mutual consent, or can it be waived in unusual circumstances? Is there any legal action between the parties?
3. Are the parties engaged in any legal proceedings?
4. Have the parties participated in conciliation or mediation?
5. Has alimony or any other outstanding matter between the parties been resolved in a sincere settlement between the parties?
6. Is FIR lodged by the respondent valid?
7. he Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act applied in this case or not?

Arguments Advanced on behalf of the Appellant

This court acknowledged that authority granted by article 1424 has been used in situations when the marriage was deemed to be irretrievably broken, emotionally dead, and untenable. This authority also ended all litigation and spared the parties from additional suffering. In the matter of Nikhil Kumar v. Rupali Kumar5, the marriage was dissolved after this Court waived the required six-month waiting time according to Article 142.

In another case, the Court negotiated with the After a long-heated argument, the parties reached an agreement on the transfer petition. In the naked truth and the set of conditions of the case, this Court waived the six months limitation under Article 1426.

Since Section 13B (1) relates to the court’s jurisdiction and the petition is only maintainable if the parties have been living apart for more than a year and have agreed that the marriage is to be dissolved, the learned adviser to the court submitted that the waiting period outlined in Section 13B (2)7 of the Act is a guideline and can be waived by the court where proceedings are ongoing, in exceptional circumstances. According to him, when there is no chance of reconciliation and the parties have been apart for a longer amount of time, the decision to waive the term is made in the interests of justice.

Argument advanced on the behalf of Respondent

In general, no court has the ability to make a directive that is opposed to the law, nor can it instruct a benchmark to act in violation of the de jure provisions. The court of justice are supposed to administer the Rule of Law⁸, not to issue orders or instructions that contradict what the law has injected. In the case of Rohini Goel, a bar of 2 judges the court ruled that the court’s ascendancy under Article 142⁹ would constitute passing an order in contravention of a statutory provision since it could not be utilised to waive the deadline of six months for filing the second motion under Section 13B.

When one party withdrew the consent so, in this, the Supreme Court ruled that union had irreparably come to grief and that the civil courts and the High Court could not wield such authority in the interests of justice¹⁰. Divorce was granted, according to the decree. Rohini Goel filed an FIR against Manish Goel and his family members in New Delhi, Janakpur, under Sections 498A, 406, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

Principles of Law Argued

As per the Supreme Court’s ruling, in this case, Article 142 of the Indian Constitution gives the court the jurisdiction to convert previously negotiated procedure articles and issue permission for a mutual divorce without making a required six months, by applying The doctrine of Irretrievable break-down of marriage¹¹.

The doctrine of Irretrievable break-down of marriage means when the couple can no longer live together and there is no possible way to save this marriage anymore or there is no way for getting back together. There is no codified law for this doctrine¹². There are few reasons for divorce listed in Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The law commission of India’s 71st Report provided a definition of irretrievable divorce.¹³

In the current case, Manish Goel v. Rohini Goel, the Supreme Court has gone so far as to invoke its exceptional powers according to Article 142 of the Indian Constitution in order to give justice to both parties, even if the case’s circumstances do not support any grounds for granting a divorce.

Even High Courts, which lack the same authority as the Supreme Court, are not permitted to apply the notion of irretrievable dissolution of marriage, as was noted in the Anil Kumar Jain v. Maya Jain case¹⁴. Both the High Court and the Civil Court are prohibited from making decisions before the time frame established by the applicable sections of the Act or for reasons not covered by Sections 13 and 13-B of the law.

Ratio Decidendi

In this instance, the Hon’ble Court ruled that language alone is not always determinative when deciding whether or not the supply is mandatory or advisory. The authority was of the opinion that where the Court hearing a case is satisfied that a case is created with a firm intention to waive the statutory amount under Section 13B (2), it would do so while taking the following into account:

1. The statutory periods of six months under Section 13B (2) and one year under Section 13B (1) of the separation of parties have already passed before the primary motion itself;
2. All attempts under Rule 3 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, including mediation and conciliation initiatives.

There is little likelihood of success in this matter from any further efforts, as the endeavours undertaken under the CPC, Section 23(2)15 of the Act, and Section 9 of the Family Courts Act to reconcile the parties have failed;

1. Any valid disagreements between the parties about maintenance, child custody, or any other unresolved matter have been settled;
2. The waiting period will only make their suffering worse;

The relinquishment petition may be registered within 1 week when the primary motion explains the justifications for the surrender prayer. The Court will have the authority to decide whether to waive the waiting amount for the next move if the top requirements are satisfied¹⁶.

Since we have a tendency to area unit of the read that the amount mentioned in Section 13B¹⁷ isn’t obligatory however directory, it’ll be receptive the Court will make a decision within the facts and circumstances of every situation when there is a unit chance of other rehabilitation and no risk of parties resuming occupancy.

It is unnecessary to mention that, in order to further the interests of justice, the Court may also use video conferencing in conducting such proceedings, as well as permit real representation of the parties by immediate family members, such as parents, children, or siblings, in situations when they are unable to attend in person for any good cause that the court may deem adequate.

Jurisprudential value of the Judgement

This concept of Divorce in Hindu marriage was first recognized in the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 wherein certain grounds have been provided on fulfilment of which either spouse will be entitled to seek divorce. It has been defined as the “dissolution of the marriage” in the Act.

In other words, all the mutual obligations of the spouses towards each other cease to exist and they are granted the freedom to lead their own way. The words like alimony, maintenance, custody, and education of the child come under HMA¹⁸. Under normal circumstances, the Act is applicable to Hindus, Sikhs, Jains, and Buddhists.

The institution of marriage is regarded as a sacred institution. As discussed earlier, the concept of dissolution of marriage was not known in ancient times and it was considered an irrevocable relationship shared between the spouses. However, at the passing of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955, the parties can simply break their marital bond if facing severe problems in marriage with the help of Judicial Separation or by seeking Divorce under the Act.

The grounds for seeking divorce as well as judicial separation are made the same through the Marriage Laws (Amendment) Act, 1976. It is up to the spouses to opt for any of the methods of dissolution¹⁹. Both the parties can file the petition under the Act seeking judicial separation²⁰. Even though some matrimonial obligations and rights continue to exist, once a favourable decree to the parties is passed, they are not obligated to live together. For the duration of the separation, obligations, and rights stay suspended. There are so many amendments done under the present scenario:

a.Marriage Laws Amendment Bill, 2010 ^[5]

The Hindu Marriage Act of 1955 and the Special Marriage Act of 1954 will both undergo changes as a result of the Marriage Laws Amendment. In the legislative, it was first put out in 2010. It was approved by Rajya Sabha on August 26, 2013. The bill’s objective was to improve the “women-friendliness” of divorce laws.

The bill had the following revisions:

1. This provision added irretrievable breakdown as a new basis for divorce.
2. This proposal included a clause that said the wife and kids would get fair recompense for the husband’s real estate.
3. It gave the courts the legal right to award the wife and kids compensation for the husband’s inherited and inheritable property once the marriage ended.

b.Personal Laws (Amendment) Act, 2019 ²²

On August 10, 2018, the Personal Laws (Amendment) Act of 2019 was introduced in Lok Sabha and approved on February 13, 2019. Its goal was to change five acts:

1. The Divorce Act of 1869,
2. the Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act of 1939,
3. the Special Marriage Act of 1954.
4. The Hindu Marriage Act of 1955; and
5. The Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act of 1956.

Application of Law in Contemporary Times

Rajaram v. Union of India, 2001²³

The question, in this case, was whether the Supreme Court may waive the six-month mandatory period²⁴ by utilizing its jurisdiction according to Article 142 of the Constitution. It was decided that according to the Constitution’s Article 142, the SC can’t completely disregard the relevant provisions of legislation and issue sacraments addressing a matter that can only be resolved through a procedure provided in another act. The 6-month limit was not waived in this case.

Poonam v. Sumit Tanwar, 2010

In this case, the Court ruled that the authority according to Article 142 might be used when the Court determines that the marriage is entirely ineffective, emotionally flat, beyond salvaging, and irretrievably weakened. This ability was also used to bring an put a stop to all legal disputes and keep the parties from the past.

Concepts Highlights

The court found in favor of waiving the separation time after considering the nature, intent, and effects of Act Section 13B. (2). As Justice Subbarao pointed out, the court may examine, among other things,

• the character and intent of the statute
• the implications of reading it
• the impact of additional laws that eliminate the need to comply with the relevant provisions
• the circumstances, such as the fact that the Act allows for noncompliance with the provisions
• if the legislation’s goal will be defeated or advanced.
• whether or whether noncompliance with the restrictions is subject to a penalty.

If holding the same defeats, the purpose of the law will be viewed as required. However, if making it necessary causes considerable general discomfort to an honest person without significantly advancing a goal of achievement, it will be seen as a directive or optional measure.

Adopting the aforesaid principle to the current instance reveals that the arrangement of forcible divorce was optional rather than required. The argument can be stated as follows:

The section’s goal was to allow them a certain length of time to think about divorce. Couples who have been separated for more than a year and want to reconnect with mutual consent have a small chance of success.

• Typically, spouses investigate divorce options such as mediation or conciliation. When such a procedure fails, the only alternative left is a legal divorce.
• After all problems, like alimony and child custody, have been resolved, a time delay between filing and granting of divorce may result in a fresh disagreement between the parties.
• The probability of a peaceful resolution may be diminished.
• The couple goes to divorce court with their minds made up. Giving both partners a forced separation period increases their agony and suffering.

Using the foregoing, the Court determined that the aforementioned clause should be surrendered, and the appellants should be freed of their hardships immediately.

Conclusion

As a result of the historic ruling, the minimum six-month separation period required by section 13B (2) of the Hindu Marriage Act is no longer required. The choice was determined in light of the case’s facts:

• They had settled all disagreements among themselves;
• The mediation or conciliation between the parties had ended in failure;
• The parties had been living apart for longer than the time period allowed by the section;
• and postponing the split would just make the pain worse.

The Court may then decide to grant the divorce and waive the separation period. According to the Supreme Court’s power under Article 142, Article 142 of the Indian Constitution, the decision was made.

References

¹ Section 12 of the Hindu marriage Act: provides for a decree of nullity of marriage.

²Section 12 of domestic violence Act, 2005: Application to the magistrate.

³Section 23: Power to grant interim and ex-prate orders.

⁴Article 142 of the Constitution of India, 1948

⁵Nikhil Kumar v/s Rupali Kumar SC, 27.04.2016

⁶Anjana Kishore v/s Puneet Kishore, August 3, 2001.

⁷Section 13B (2) Hindu Marriage Act, 1955: Divorce by Mutual consent

⁸Rule of law denotes Supremacy of law.

⁹Article 142 of the Indian Constitution.

¹⁰Anil Kumar Jain v/s Maya Jain.

¹¹Section 1 of the Divorce Law Reforms Act, 1973.

¹²WWW.legalserviceindia.com

¹³lawgica.in

¹⁴Supra

¹⁵Section 23 decrees in proceedings under the Hindu Marriage Act states that permission for divorce must not have been attained via coercion, fraud, or undue influence.

¹⁶lawlex.com

¹⁷Section 13B: to let the spouses end a marriage by agreement if it has irretrievably broken down.

¹⁸Section 25 & Section 26 of HMA.

¹⁹Indian Law Institute, Indian Legal System (2 Rev Ed 2006)

²⁰Section 10 of Hindu Marriage Act.

²¹Section13(f)

²² Personal Laws (Amendment) Act, 2019–Notified, available at: https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2019/02/25/personal-laws-amendment-act-2019-notified / last visited on 8. April.2022

²³https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1049629/

 ²⁴https://indiankanoon.org/doc/50438237/

This article was contributed by Tamiksha Agarwal, a student at Law College Dehradun, Uttaranchal University, Dehradun.