 of the Hindu Marriage Act (HMA).){kind=link}
The Delhi Family Court has allowed the first motion of divorce to a couple through virtual mode with the husband being an Australia-based Non-Resident Indian (NRI).
The divorce petition was filed jointly by the husband and the wife earlier this year under Section 13B (2) of the Hindu Marriage Act (HMA). Sanjay Diwakar, the counsel for the husband, submitted that petitioner 1 (husband) is residing in Adelaide, Australia and is unable to come to India due to exigencies of work and he has executed a Special Power of Attorney (SPA) in favour of his younger brother, who is present in court.
Advocate Vineet Jindal appeared on behalf of the woman who stays in South-West Delhi.
The Court on September 15 allowed the recording of statement of the SPA holder in view of the case titled as Vinay Jude Dias Vs Renajeet Vs Anil Kaur 2008 CM(M) 1030/2008 and Neelima Chopra Chopra 1986 (11) DRJ I188, in which the Delhi High Court has permitted to record the statement of attorney in a proceeding under Section 13-B of HMA.
The couple were married on February 18, 2012 at Delhi according to Hindu rites and ceremonies and a child was born on October 15, 2014 from this wedlock. The petitioner 1 has been living separately from petitioner 2 (wife) since May 2016 on account of their temperamental differences and mental incompatibility. Despite the best of efforts, made by both of them, as well as their friends and relatives, they could not resolve their differences. They have then decided to part ways amicably and seek divorce by mutual consent.
According to the plea, the petitioners have already settled all their claims and disputes against each other amicably with regard to maintenance past, present and future, permanent alimony, dowry, stridhan etc. It has been agreed between the petitioners that the petitioner 1 has agreed to pay an amount of Rs 17,00,000 to petitioner 2 towards maintenance (past, present and future), permanent alimony, stridhan etc. They have agreed and undertaken that neither party shall have any right, title or interest in each other’s properties hereinafter and neither shall interfere in each other’s lives in future. The permanent custody of their child will remain with the mother.
Judge Vipin Kumar Rai of the Dwarka Family Court observed that both the petitioners have sought dissolution of their marriage by grant of a decree of the divorce, however, decree of divorce cannot be granted to the parties at this stage. In view of the specific provision of Section 13-B(2) of the Act which provides for a minimum waiting period of six months from the date of presentation of their first motion petition /S 13-B(1) of the Act.
“The petitioners are thus advised to make further sincere efforts for reconciliation and revival of their matrimonial home. In case petitioners fail to resolve their differences and resume cohabitation and if that revival of their matrimonial relationship is not possible, thus they may take appropriate step and pray for dissolution of their marriage as per the provisions of Section 13-1B (2) of the Act on the basis of mutual consent. 12. In view of the above facts and circumstances, I allow the present petition. The first motion is allowed. Parties abide by their statements. The petition is disposed of. File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance,” the order reads.