MOHAMMAD RAFIQ,J. - (1.) This appeal has been filed by the appellant-husband challenging order dated 20.07.2019 passed by the Family Court No. 1, Jaipur (for short 'the Family Court'), which thereby refused to register the application filed by the appellant under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short 'the Act') for obtaining a decree of divorce by mutual consent on the ground that the same has been filed before expiry of one year from the date of separation.
(2.) Mr. Akhil Simlote, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that marriage of the appellant and the respondent was solemnized on 08.02.2019 at Village Jyaani, Tehsil Jayal, District Nagaur, Jaipur. No child is born out of their wedlock. The appellant- husband and the respondent-wife filed an application under Section 13B of the Act before the Family Court stating therein that after marriage differences arose between them and it is not possible for the parties to live together. However, the Family Court vide impugned order dated 20.07.2019 has refused to entertain/register that application on the ground that the same has been filed before expiry of period of one year from the date of separation.
(3.) When this matter was listed before this Court on 06.08.2019, the parties were present before the Court and prayed for grant of decree of divorce by mutual consent, which application has been dismissed by the Family Court as premature. The respondent-wife being specifically asked as to whether any amount of permanent alimony has been agreed to be paid by the appellant- husband, contended that she does not want any permanent alimony but she wants decree of divorce by mutual consent. The matter was deferred to be listed on 19.08.2019. The parties again appeared before this Court on 19.08.2019 and expressed the same desire. The matter was ordered to be listed on 21.08.2019 and then on 29.08.2019. Finally the arguments were heard in the matter on 30.08.2019. In the meantime, joint application under Section 14(1) of the Act was filed by the parties on 20.08.2019, which reads as under: "1. That the petitioner filed the above captioned appeal before this Hon'ble Court against the order dated 20.07.2019, passed by Shri Jhumar Lal Chauhan, RHJS District Judge Cadre, Family Court No. 1, Jaipur, where by the application filed by the applicant for dissolution of marriage under Section 13(B) of the Hindu Marriage Act was refused to be entertained on the ground that the same was filed before expiry of one year from the date of separation. 2. That the appellant and the respondent got married on 08.02.2019 by Hindu rituals at Village Jyaani, Tehsil Jayal, District Nagaur (Raj.). The marriage of the parties was not as per their choice but it was under the pressure of both the families. After the marriage the parties have not lived as husband and wife for even a single day and the marriage has not been consummated. Soon after the marriage differences between the appellant and respondents started and they developed to the extent that it has become impossible for the parties to live together. 3. That in view of this fact it is not possible for the parties to live together and the consummation of the marriage has not taken place as the appellant and respondents were living separately since 09.03.2009. 4. That the applicant and respondents both on becoming sure that they cannot live together decided to separate and select their life partner of their own choice. Parties with the consent of each other started to search for the same and fortunately enough they have been able to find out the same. 5. That if the statutory period is not waived, there is possibility that the relations between the parties will become more wore and at present they are cooperating each other which may not be possible with passage of time. 6. That the parties have already searched their new life partners and the would be new partners are not ready to wait as such there is every hope that with passing of time parties will not be able to settle with their selected partners and their lives shall be ruined. It is further submitted that both the parties have been given a short period of time to the applicant and respondent to obtain the divorce and marry with them and if divorce is not granted to the applicant and respondents then it will a trouble for them for all the times to come. 7. That both the parties are educated and they have taken this decision with full sense of responsibility at their command in which there is no scope of change. If the application is not allowed, the same shall simply delay the process for nothing. God has given a limited married life to the human beings and if the application is allowed, that much of time out of the limited life shall be wasted for nothing. 8. That in view of the above fact and circumstances, the Hon'ble Court may under the proviso of the Section 14(1) of the H.M.A. relax the presentation time of divorce petition before completion of one year of marriage and the second motion period also. 9. That there is no possibility of reconciliation between the parties and if this process is kept pending, it may increase bitterness and agony. 10. That the other grounds shall be submitted at the time of arguments." 3. We have given our anxious consideration to rival submissions and carefully perused the material on record. We have also studied the decided case laws on interpretation of Section 14 of the Act.;