Latest Judgement

1. Introduction
   The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (“HMA”), via Section 13‑B, offers a non-contentious route to marital dissolution. It mandates two motions, a minimum one-year separation, and a six-month cooling‑off period. The Bombay High Court’s recent jurisprudence, particularly in Sneha Akshay Garg & Anr. v. Nil (“Garg”), has significantly advanced judicial attitude toward colder interregnums under Section 13‑B(2). This article critically examines the Court’s reasoning, contextualizes it within statutory interpretation, doctrinal precedents, and social reform, and evaluates its implications for matrimonial jurisprudence in India.
2. STATUTORY FRAMEWORKSection 13‑B, HMA provides:i) FIRST MOTION
   Both spouses jointly petition, alleging a one-year separation and failure to cohabit.ii) SECOND MOTION
   Filed no sooner than six and no later than eighteen months later; court will decree divorce after hearing if satisfied the marriage exists and the terms are true.

   The six-month wait safeguards against precipitous decisions and preserves opportunities for reconciliation. Yet, it may become a needless impediment in cases of irretrievable breakdown.

3. PRECEDENT AND DIVERGING HIGH COURT APPROACHES
   Bombay HC’s Jayashree Ramesh Londhe v. Ramesh Bhikaji Londhe held that initial consent cannot be withdrawn before decree, underscoring the finality of Section 13‑B filings. Conversely, Kerala, Punjab & Haryana, and Rajasthan High Courts acknowledged post-filing withdrawal under Section 13‑B(2), emphasizing ongoing consent. The Supreme Court, in Devinder Singh Narula v. Meenakshi Nangia (Article 142), recognized its extraordinary power to waive the wait period in irreconcilable cases. However, this remains a narrow exception.
4. THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT’S PROGRESSIVE SHIFT
   i. GARG: WAIVER AS REALISTIC AND HUMANE
   In Garg (2024), Single Judge Justice Gauri Godse waived the Section 13‑B(2) waiting period, noting excessive delay inflicted mental agony, without reconciliation prospects, and parties had settled alimony amicably. The Court emphasized “Given the rapid changes in our evolving society…courts should adopt a realistic approach”, anchoring waiver within judicial duty rather than exceptional power.ii. PROCEDURAL SAFEGUARDS: COMPLIANCE IN LETTER AND SPIRIT
   Justice Abhay Oka & Justice Kulkarni, in Bharti Bhausaheb Aher v. Bhausaheb Kautik Aher (2017), admonished Family Courts for converting contested divorce to mutual divorce without opportunity for the spouse to contest consent terms, reinstating strict compliance with Section. 13‑B(1), (2), and Section 23(1)(bb) obligations.
5. DOCTRINAL IMPLICATIONS AND STATUTORY INTERPRETATION
   The Bombay HC’s stance pivots on balancing literalism with purpose: while safeguarding against impulsive divorce remains legislative intent, purposive interpretation allows courts discretion where continued delay amounts to injustice. This aligns with Miten v. Union of India, affirming that mutual consent must persist until decree. The functionalist shift reflects a dynamic reading of statute in socio-legal context.
6. POLICY AND PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS
   i. MENTAL HEALTH AND JUDICIAL ECONOMY
   Waiver reduces mental distress and judicial backlogs.ii. UNIFORMITY VS. FLEXIBILITY
   Clarifies guidelines for waiver, mental agony, settlement finality, no reconciliation—but risks divergent outcomes across benches.iii. PROTECTIVE OVERSIGHT
   Mandated judicial scrutiny of alimony terms under Section 23(1)(bb) ensures fairness, as reinforced by Aher and Borde & Gadkari, JJ in Salvi v. Salvi.
7. CONCLUSION
   THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT HAS CHARTED A PROGRESSIVE PATH
   Honoring the statutory structure of Section 13‑B while enabling compassionate judicial intervention in extreme cases. Its jurisprudence, anchored in careful scrutiny, doctrine, and evolving societal ethos charts a middle path between rigidity and expedience in mutual consent divorces. Future family courts must faithfully replicate this balance, ensuring both procedural compliance and humane resolution in matrimonial justice.

This article has been researched and written by Advocate Aarun Chanda, who practices divorce cases in Mumbai and Pune. It is intended solely for academic purposes and should not be construed as legal advice. Readers are encouraged to consult a qualified lawyer or advocate specializing in divorce cases for professional legal guidance.

Seeking expert legal guidance?- Contact The Divorce Law Firm today.