Family Courts Shouldn't Fetter "Freedom To Re-Marry" By Directing Couples Seeking Mutual Divorce To Live Together: Punjab & Haryana HC

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has said that Family Courts cannot curtail the freedom of parties to remarry by directing the couple seeking divorce by mutual consent, to live together.

The couple who cohabited only for three days, was seeking divorce by mutual consent. The Court set-aside the order of Family Court wherein it rejected the plea to relax the mandatory period of one year after the marriage required before filing divorce, under Section 14 of Hindu Marriage Act (HMA). 

Justice Sureshwar Thakur and Justice Sudeepti Sharma observed,

"...when no child was born from the wedlock. In addition when both are young, and, have a promising career ahead. Moreover also when their freedom to re-marry is required not to be fettered through any intrusion thereto becoming made rather by the Family Court, that too but only for conjectural reasons."

 The bench further added that the direction of the Family Court insisting the parties to live together, "thus to the considered mind of this Court appears to be but banked upon ill informed reason(s)."

The Family Court while rejecting the application had observed, "The petitioners herein are young and educated persons. Chances of their coming together and the reasonable probability of their reconciliation at the stage cannot altogether be ruled out. Nor there is any serious issue between them which has impelled and compelled them as such to take such extreme step for divorce."

It was submitted by the parties that all the marital disputes between them were mutually resolved and they only cohabited for three days after marriage.

After hearing the submissions, the Court opined that the Family Court's decision overlooked the fact that parties had resolved their marital dispute, through drawing a deed of settlement for divorce.

The bench observed that no such evidence had been adduced before the Family Court, suggesting that the "deed of settlement drawn inter se the parties at lis was ridden with the vices of suppression or fraud."

It highlighted that declining the relief to the parties, "has been not only an unnecessary fettering of the freedom of choice, and, exercisings of options rather by the contesting litigants concerned, but also therebys the Family Court concerned, has inhibited the parties at lis to after leave being granted, adduce evidence displaying that the deed of settlement was obtained through fraud or suppression."

Speaking for the bench, Justice Thakur added that the Family Court should not have observed that the parties at lis are educated and thus there are chances of reconciliation.

The Court further said that the relief to relax the bar under Section 14, HMA should not have been denied when the mutual settlement between the parties is nit drawn by "fraud or collusion or through misrepresentation."

In the light of the above, the Court set aside the order passed by the Family Court and directed it "to proceed to register the Hindu Marriage Petition cast under Section 13-B of the Act, and, to thereafter proceed to issue summons to the contesting litigants to make their respective personal appearances for theirs making their first statement before the learned Family Court concerned."

Subsequently, the learned Family Court concerned, may deem it fit and appropriate to relax the apposite statutory period of six months as envisaged under Section 13-B of the Act of 1955, it added. 

 Mr. Kanwal Goyal, Advocate Mr. Prince Singh, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. Ashwariya Bajaj, Advocate for the respondent.

Title: XXXX v. XXXX

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 258