Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (78 of 1956), Section 19 -- Maintenance to grandchildren --  Interpretation of word widow -- Family Court directed the petitioner to pay the maintenance pendente lite @ Rs.2,000/- each to his three grandchildren – The 1956 Act is a beneficial legislation enacted in order to take care of the destitute daughter-in-law who, on account of unfortunate circumstances, becomes a widow -- The word “widow” would include the minor grandchildren who are staying with their mother -- No ground to interfere with the impugned order -- Revision petition dismissed.

(Para 1-4)

Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (78 of 1956), Section 19, 21, 22, 23 -- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 7 Rule 11 -- Maintenance to widowed daughter-in-law and grandchild – Liability of mother-in-law --  Rejection of plaint -- Contention that petition u/s 19 of the 1956 Act can only be maintained against the father-in-law and not against the mother-in-law -- Under common law, if the grand mother has the wherewithal, she has the moral responsibility to maintain her widowed daughter-in-law and grandchild – Application for rejection of plaint dismissed – Revision also dismissed.

(Para 1-4)

Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (30 of 1956), Section 15(1) -- Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, (28 of 1961), Section 6(3) – Conviction for murder of wife – Husband’s right on dowry articles -- Wife died within 7 years of her marriage -- Record reveals that she died unnatural death other than in normal circumstances -- Thus, the case of the appellant squarely falls within Clause 3 of Section 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, so as to maintain the custody of dowry articles with the complainant -- Provisions of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, cannot be overlooked by invoking the provisions of Hindu Law relating to Succession -- Trial Court rightly held that husband was not entitled to retain dowry even if he was acquitted and dowry articles will remain with father of deceased.

(Para 14-16)

Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (30 of 1956), Section 2(2), 7, 8 – Constitution of India, Article 14, 21 -- Scheduled Tribe daughter’s right of survivorship -- Whether the appellant/petitioner being the daughter is entitled to the share in the compensation with respect to the land acquired, on survivorship basis under the provisions of Hindu Succession Act? -- As per Section 2(2) of the Hindu Succession Act, the Hindu Succession Act will not be applicable to the members of the Scheduled Tribe.

-- If the claim of the appellant on the basis of the survivorship under the Hindu Succession Act is accepted in that case it would tantamount to amend the law. It is for the legislature to amend the law and not the Court.

-- To deny the equal right to the daughter belonging to the tribal even after a period of 70 years of the Constitution of India under which right to equality is guaranteed, it is high time for the Central Government to look into the matter and if required, to amend the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act by which the Hindu Succession Act is not made applicable to the members of the Scheduled Tribe.

-- Direction given to Central Government to consider it just and necessary to withdraw the exemptions provided to the Scheduled Tribes and whether to bring a suitable amendment or not – Court shown hope and trust that the Central Government will look into the matter and take an appropriate decision taking into consideration the right to equality guaranteed under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

(Para 6-7.2)

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955), Section 13(1)(ia) -- Divorce petition – Non-filing of written statement -- Striking off defence – Petitioner-wife was never afforded sufficient and adequate opportunity to file her written statement -- Held, in the matrimonial litigation, the dispute is primarily relating to the human relationship, which ultimately not only affects the two families but the society at large as well and thus, the standard of strict applicability of the procedure needs to be avoided and instead of adopting hyper-technical approach, the courts are required to be more practical while dealing with such kind of litigation -- Revision petition allowed by granting one effective opportunity to petitioner-wife to file written statement as well as reply to the application for grant of interim custody of the minor child before the court below.

(Para 5-8)

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955), Section 13 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 24 -- Transfer of divorce petition – Yamunanagar to Mohali – Respondent- husband, besides looking after his shuttering business is burdened with the responsibility of upbringing three children; out of whom two are girls aged 18 and 21 years while the son is 15 years of age -- The age of the children is very crucial inasmuch as their studies and career is concerned – Singular concern that weighs is the interest and welfare of the children, which is paramount -- Keeping in view the interest of the young adults/ children of the parties, no case for transferring the petition u/s 13 of the HMA from Yamuna Nagar to Mohali is made out – Petition dismissed.

(Para 7-10)

A. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955), Section 13-B, 14 – Divorce by mutual consent within one year of marriage -- Waiver of mandatory period of one year -- Couple stayed together only for about two months and there is no issue from the wedlock, this is the sufficient ground to allow their application filed u/s 14 of the Act for waiving off the mandatory period of one year.

(Para  6)

B. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955), Section 13-B, 14 – Divorce by mutual consent within one year of marriage -- Waiver of mandatory period of one year – Appeal against dismissal of application for waiver – Couple Stayed together for about two months – No issue from the wedlock -- Appellant/ husband is staying in USA – SPA/ father of husband and the respondent alongwith her parents present in Court -- Keeping in view the compromise effected and the statements made by both the parties, appeal converted to a petition u/s Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 -- Mandatory period of one year u/s 14 of Act, 1955 waived -- Marriage between the parties dissolved by way of mutual consent.

(Para 6)

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955), Section 13 – Dissolution of marriage – Witness-wife living in Canada – Cross-examination through video conferencing – Procedural aspects in conjunction with the latest technology have to be used, so as to help the parties to avail their remedies in the most efficient and effective manner, rather than curtailing their rights -- It would also ensure expeditious disposal of the proceedings including, avoid the burden of unnecessary expenses relating to the visit of petitioner, if any -- Trial court shall allow the petitioner-wife to appear as witness for the purpose of her cross-examination through video conferencing by following the procedure laid down under the aforesaid High Court Rules and orders.

(Para 10, 11)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 406 -- Matrimonial discord -- Transfer of case – Lucknow to Delhi -- Since two cases (HMA and DV Act) are already pending in the Delhi Courts in which respondent No.1 and her family members have already put their appearance and the petitioner, in the first case, on account of financial constraint, is likely to face hardships in travelling to Lucknow to defend herself in the Criminal Complaint – Transfer Petitions allowed.

(Para 5-9)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 25 -- Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955), Section 13A -- Transfer of divorce petition – Jaipur to Dehradun -- Petitioner-wife seeks transfer of the case mainly on the ground of her precarious mental health condition and her inability to travel from Dehradun to Jaipur which is about 530 Kms away, to attend the proceedings of the case filed by the respondent-husband -- Taking into consideration the hardships which are likely to be faced by the petitioner-wife transfer petition allowed.

(Para 1-5)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 125 -- Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (78 of 1956), Section 18 – Maintenance in two proceedings -- Appellant-wife has been granted two separate maintenance claims i.e. one at the rate of Rs.3,000/- per month by the JMIC u/s 125 Cr.P.C., and the second at the rate of Rs.5,000/- per month by the Civil Judge, Senior Division u/s 18 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 – Appellant-wife looking after her two children born out of the wedlock -- High Court while passing the impugned order has held that the maintenance amount of Rs.5,000/- per month, granted to the appellant-wife, will also include Rs.3,000/- per month granted to her u/s 125 Cr.P.C – Appellant and the two children cannot sustain with this meagre amount of Rs.5,000/- -- Held, such an approach of the High Court is totally erroneous and cannot be sustained in law.

(Para 3-6)

A. Hindu law -- Ancestral property -- Both the Courts below concurrently held that there is no evidence on record to establish ancestor property – Pedigree table in itself is no evidence of ancestry, nor can it be the basis to decide ancestral nature of property which can only be established by independent proof including the revenue records/ jamabandis -- It has to be proved beyond doubt that the property was undivided property of a Hindu family of four generations -- There is no such evidence on record -- No ground to interfere with the concurrent findings of the Courts below on this issue.

(Para 8)

B. Evidence law -- Attorney appeared as witness – Original attorney -- Plaintiff himself not appeared to testify in support of the plaint – Power of attorney holder/PW-4 failed to produce the original power of attorney on record -- Opportunities afforded, still  could not bring the original on record -- It was, therefore, held that photocopy of the power of attorney cannot be read in evidence -- As the plaintiff himself has not deposed in the case, therefore, no exception can be taken to the adverse inference drawn against him on this account.

(Para 9)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 24 -- Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955), Section 13 – Transfer of Divorce petition -- Kapurthala to Fazilka -- It is well settled that while considering the transfer of a matrimonial dispute/case, at the instance of the wife, the Court is to consider the family condition of the wife, the custody of the minor child, economic condition of the wife, her physical health and earning capacity of the husband and most important the convenience of the wife i.e. she cannot travel alone without assistance of a male member of her family, connectivity of the place to and from her place of residence as well as bearing of the litigation charges and travelling expenses – Case transferred.

(Para 6, 7)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 25 – Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955), Section 9 -- Transfer of restitution of conjugal rights case – Bihar to Maharashtra – Petitioner/ wife is unemployed and is dependent on her parents, coupled with the fact that three cases are already pending against the respondent(s) in the Courts at Nagpur, Maharashtra, Matrimonial Case pending before the Family Court, Bhagalpur, Bihar is ordered to be transferred to a Family/Competent Court at Nagpur, Maharashtra.

(Para 1-4)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 125 -- Maintenance law – Assessment of income -- Income tax Return -- Income tax returns do not necessarily furnish an accurate guide of the real income – It is for the Family Court to determine on a holistic assessment of the evidence what would be the real income so as to enable the appellants to live in a condition commensurate with the status to which they were accustomed during the time when they were staying together.

(Para 10)

A. Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (30 of 1956), Section 4(2) – Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 (8 of 1954), Section 50(a) – Constitution of India, Article 254 – Challenge to Section 50(a) of Delhi Reforms Act, 1954 – Repugnancy in two Acts -- Concurrent list III -- Question of repugnancy would not come into existence unless it is first established that both enactments are under the Concurrent list (List III) – 1954 Act is not referable to any matter enumerated in List III but it is referable to Entry 18 of List II -- Thus, no question of repugnancy would arise in view of Article 254 of the Constitution.

(Para 18, 19)

B. Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (30 of 1956), Section 4(2) – General Clauses Act, 1897 (10 of 1897), Section 6(b) (c) -- Repeal of Section 4(2) of Hindu Succession Act, 1956 – Prospective effect -- Deletion of Section 4(2) took place w.e.f 09.09.2005 therefore, the effect of the deletion can only be in respect of successions which opened on or after 09.09.2005 -- This is because under Section 6(b) and 6(c) of the General Clauses Act repeal cannot affect the previous operation of any enactment so repealed and cannot affect any right which may have been acquired or accrued.

(Para 23-25)

C. Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (30 of 1956), Section 4(2) – Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 (8 of 1954), Section 50(a) – Repeal of Section 4(2) of Hindu Succession Act, 1956 w.e.f. 09.09.2005 – Prospective effect -- Property in question is agricultural property, and therefore, in 1997 on death, the devolution of interest (inheritance) would be determinable on the said date, in accordance with the law existing at that time -- Subsequent deletion would not have any impact on the rights of inheritance, which had already accrued and crystallised, prior to the amendment -- Even existence of Section 4(2) in the 1956 Act and its deletion will not have any impact for the reason that the 1954 Act, is a special law, dealing with fragmentation, ceiling, and devolution of tenancy rights over agricultural holdings only, whereas the 1956 Act is a general law, providing for succession to a Hindu by religion as stated in Section 2 thereof -- Existence or absence of Section 4(2) in the 1956 Act would be immaterial.

(Para 21-26)

D. Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 (8 of 1954), Section 50(a) – Constitution of India, Article 14, 15, 21, 254 – Challenge to Section 50(a) of Delhi Reforms Act, 1954 -- Gender bias/ women empowerment  -- There can be no challenge to the 1954 Act as the said legislation is included in the Ninth Schedule of the Constitution of India.

(Para 28)

E. Amendment in statute -- Prospective effect -- It is well settled that all amendments are deemed to apply prospectively unless expressly specified to apply retrospectively or intended to have been done so by the legislature.

(Para 23)

Constitution of India, Article 21, 226 -- Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 (32 of 1956), Section 4(b), 6 and 13  – Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 (8 of 1890), Section 7 -- Live-in-relationship of minor girl with boy -- Guardian of minor girl – Writ for Protection of Life and liberty -- Boy does not fall within ambit of Sections 4 and 6 of the 1956 Act -- Petitioners (Boy and girl) have not solemnised the marriage – No material on record to even prima facie satisfy Court with regard to the welfare of the minor -- In writ, it would not be possible to record evidence to the effect that petitioner No. 1 (boy) is acting for the welfare of petitioner No. 2 (girl) and his interest is not adverse to the interest of the minor -- Minor held to be not with her guardians – Petition is filed to be used as a shield against the complaint filed by the family of petitioner No. 2 (girl) -- Petition dismissed.

(Para 2, 6-15)

Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (30 of 1956), Section 6 -- Joint Hindu Family coparcenary property -- Ancestral property – Self-acquired property – Sale challenged claiming co-parcenery -- Plaintiff did not make any attempt to identify the ancestral property -- Thus, the ancestral property got blended with the self-acquired property -- It is well settled that unless the plaintiff proves and separately identifies the ancestral property, the entire property shall be construed to be self-acquired -- Both the courts below, correctly, dismissed the suit – Regular Second Appeal dismissed.

(Para 1-5)

A. Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (78 of 1956), Section 18, 20 – Maintenance to wife – Relinquishment of right to maintenance – Effect of -- Even if the wife executes an agreement relinquishing her right to receive any maintenance in future, that would be contrary to the public policy and unenforceable, and that she would be entitled to seek for maintenance, if she is unable to maintain herself.

(Para 27)

B. Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (78 of 1956), Section 18, 20 – Maintenance to wife/ daughter – Admitted fact on record that the husband is a software professional working at Singapoor at the time of marriage -- Case of the defendant / husband is that subsequently he lost job and that presently he is an un-employed -- When he is pleading that he is unemployed, he has to prove the same, which he failed – Irresistible conclusion that has to be drawn is that the defendant having sufficient means, failed to maintain the plaintiffs -- Plaintiff No.1/ wife claimed maintenance of Rs.10,000/- for herself and Rs.5,000/- for the 2nd plaintiff/ daughter is reasonable and the same requires to be granted – In all they are held entitled to Rs.15,000/- per month from the date of filing of the suit i.e., 09.10.2003.

(Para 28-32)

Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 (32 of 1956), Section 6, 8 -- Writ of habeas corpus – Custody of new born child -- Agreement of adoption before birth – Petitioner is natural mother, no registered agreement -- Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 does not envisage an agreement to adopt a child, who is not yet born -- Thus, respondent Nos. 4 and 5 cannot claim to be in lawful custody of the minor child in question -- Writ petition allowed and respondent Nos. 4 and 5 are directed to hand over the custody of the baby boy to the petitioner forthwith -- It is open to respondent Nos. 4 and 5 to take steps to enforce any agreement, which they have, in an appropriate Court of law.

(Para 1-5)

A. Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 (32 of 1956), Section 6 – Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 (8 of 1890) , Section 25 -- Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Custody of minor child – Writ of habeas corpus – Scope of -- Where the court is of the view that a detailed inquiry is required the Court may decline to exercise the extraordinary jurisdiction of a Writ Court and direct the parties to approach the Civil Court -- It is only in exceptional cases, where the rights of the parties to the custody of the minor will be determined in the exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction in a petition for Habeas Corpus -- Where in the circumstances of a particular case the ordinary remedy of the Civil Courts is either not available or is ineffective, a writ of Habeas Corpus is certainly maintainable, moreso, where it is shown that the detention of the minor child by a parent or others was illegal, without any authority of law and was also to the detriment of the child.

(Para 16)

B. Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 (32 of 1956), Section 6, 13 – Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 (8 of 1890) , Section 25 -- Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Custody of minor child – Writ of habeas corpus – Paramount consideration ought to be the welfare of the child and due weight should be given to the child's comfort, contentment, health, education, intellectual development, familiar surroundings etc. -- Question of the welfare and interest of a minor child has to be judged on the consideration of the acknowledged superiority of the mother's love and affection for her children -- Girl child is less than five years old -- She was brought back to India by respondent no. 7 and 8 (grand-parents) on 23.1.2020 after which due to COVID-19 the petitioner-mother was unable to see her till March 2022 -- Even if the child had refused to go with the mother, that by itself does not have any significance as a child of such tender age does not know what is in her best interest -- Minor girl child may have developed a bond with the respondent nos.7 & 8 with whom she is residing for the last more than two years because of which she might have stated that she does not wish to go with her mother -- However, in the long term for the benefit and welfare of the child, by no stretch of imagination can it be said that the welfare of the child would be better taken care of by the grandparents viz-a-viz the mother -- Even otherwise, in the case of child who is less than 05 years old the custody should ordinarily be with the mother – Petition allowed, custody of the minor child ordered to be handed over to the petitioner (mother) immediately.

(Para 17-21)

Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 (8 of 1890), Section 7 -- Death of Parents – Interim custody of Child – Grandparents compare to maternal aunt -- Custody of the minor remained with the grandfather pursuant to the interim order passed by the High Court -- Nothing observed by the High Court that during the interim custody period, the appellant-paternal grandparents did not take proper care of the minor and acted detrimental to the interest of the minor – Minor also shown willingness to stay with the appellant – They have also managed to get admission of the minor in a school in Ahmedabad -- Minor will get better education in Ahmedabad, which is a Metro City compared to the education in Dahod where maternal aunt resides -- Being a retired person, the paternal grandparents would devote more time and take care of minor better than respondent No. 4 who is serving in the government department – Income and/or the age and/or the bigger family cannot be the sole criteria to tilt the balance and not to give the custody of the grandson to the paternal grandparents – Held, High Court has committed an error in not handing over and/or continuing the custody of the corpus-grandson to the appellant-paternal grandparents and to give custody of the corpus to respondent No. 4-maternal aunt of the corpus -- Custody ordered to be given to grand-parents subject to the final outcome of the proceedings u/s 7 of the Guardians and Wards Act, pending before the competent court.

(Para 7.1-8)

A. Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (30 of 1956), Section 6 – Will -- Ancestral property/ Co-parcenery property – Plea of – Proof of -- Contention that the suit properties is ancestral in the hands of testator  and upon his death the plaintiffs derived a share in the same – Held, it was incumbent upon appellant/plaintiff to establish that the suit properties were ancestral, however, the plaintiffs miserably failed to establish this stand -- There is no revenue record or other document showing that the suit properties devolved upon testator from his father and forefathers --  In the absence of any evidence, it cannot be held that the suit properties were ancestral.

(Para 14, 15)

B. Will – Suspicious circumstance -- Merely because the daughters of the Testator have been left out from the Will is not sufficient ground to discard it.

(Para 14)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 24 – Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955), Section 9 – Restitution of conjugal rights petition – Transfer from Bathinda Camp at Phul to Faridkot – Distance between two town is 60 K.M – Both the towns adjoin each other and are interconnected by the well metalled road with all types of conveyance and facilities -- Being a civil matter, presence of the applicant is not required and the husband is trying to seek restoration of his rights of matrimonial relationship and the wife is trying to evade her obligations rather goes against the very conduct of the wife – Transfer application dismissed.

(Para 1-4)

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955), Section 13, 25 – Divorce -- Cruelty – Long separation – Non-giving consent to mutual divorce -- Whether the relationship of the husband and wife has come to an end and if the respondent-wife is not ready to give mutual divorce to the appellant-husband, whether this act of her, would amount to cruelty towards husband, keeping in view the fact that she is not staying with her husband for the last about 23 years and there is no scope that they can cohabit as husband and wife again -- Marriage between the parties had broken down irretrievably since long and there is no chance of their coming together, or living together again – Not to grant decree of divorce would be disastrous for the parties -- Firstly efforts were made to resolve the matrimonial dispute through the process of mediation, which is one of the effective mode of alternative mechanism in resolving the personal dispute but the mediation failed between the parties -- Appeal allowed, decree of divorce granted in favour of the appellant-husband -- Appellant-husband to make an F.D. of Rs.10 lakhs as permanent alimony in the name of the respondent-wife.

(Para 11-19)

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955), Section 13 -- Cruelty to husband -- Divorce -- Respondent/ wife  filed a complaint u/s 499 and 500 IPC against the father of the appellant/ husband, however, same has been dismissed – In petition u/s 17 against the appellant-husband and his family members, wherein appellant was directed to pay half rent of the tenanted premises i.e. Rs.4,925/- per month to the respondent, whereas the petition qua other family members of the appellant was dismissed – Besides this, respondent-wife also moved complaints to the Army authorities against the appellant, which have affected his service career and have lowered his reputation -- As a result of which appellant had to suffer immense mental as well as physical cruelty – Held, above-said facts are sufficient to return a finding that appellant-husband has been met with cruelty by the respondent-wife -- Decree of divorce granted.

(Para 10-15)

Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (30 of 1956), Section 14 – Hindu woman’s right to maintenance -- Absolute right of Hindu Woman on property -- Where a Hindu widow is in possession of the property of her husband or of the husband’s HUF, she has a right to be maintained out of the said property -- She is entitled to retain the possession of that property in lieu of her right to maintenance -- Section 14(1) and the Explanation thereto envisages liberal construction in favour of the females, with the object of advancing and promoting the socio-economic ends sought to be achieved by the said legislation – Facts and circumstances clearly established that she had long settled possession of the suit property, which she had acquired in lieu of her pre-existing right to maintenance, prior to the commencement of the Act of 1956, which entitled her to become a full owner of the suit property by virtue of Section 14(1) of the said Act – Her pre-existing right to maintenance, coupled with her settled legal possession of the property, would be sufficient to create a presumption that she had a vestige of right or claim in the property, though no document was executed or specific charge was created in her favour recognizing her right to maintenance in the property – Held, High Court had rightly held that she had pre-existing right to maintenance in the suit property that had ripened into full ownership by virtue of Section 14(1) of the Act of 1956.

(Para 14-21)

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955), Section 13(1)(ia)(ib) – Divorce – Cruelty – Desertion – FIR and other litigation – Acquittal in FIR and dismissal of domestic violence case – Effect of -- Marriage between the parties on 13.12.1992 -- Four children from this wedlock born are staying with the respondent-husband – Divorce has been granted on the grounds of cruelty and desertion by Trial Court -- Even one complaint lodged by the wife found to be false against the husband and his family members amounts to cruelty – Even if husband and wife are staying together and husband does not speak to the wife, it would cause mental cruelty and a spouse staying away by sending vulgar and defamatory letters or notices or filing complaints containing indecent allegations or by initiating number of judicial proceedings can make the life of other spouse miserable – After the acquittal in the FIR and dismissal of the domestic violence complaint, enough mental cruelty has been caused to the husband – No illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment and decree which calls for interference by this Court -- Appeal dismissed.

(Para 4-10)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 24 -- Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955), Section 13(i)(b) – Transfer of divorce petition from Panchkula to U.T. Chandigarh – Primary reasons for the wife that it was difficult for her and not convenient to attend the hearings in Panchkula on each and every date of hearing in view of the fact that her husband is a police constable – Panchkula and Chandigarh are adjoining to each other and alongwith Mohali are termed as tri-city and are interconnected and there is not much of a difference between the two what to talk of the distance which could be a cause for inconvenience and hardship for the wife -- Section 24 of the CPC cannot be so loosely construed so as to come to the aid of the wife on frivolous and flimsy reasons for getting the matter transferred -- Petition is nothing but a pure misuse of the process of the law and there being no merits stands dismissed.

(Para 1-4)

Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 (8 of 1890), Section 25 – Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 (32 of 1956), Section 6 -- Custody of minor child – Appellant/ father is a drug-addict; he is facing trial in six cases under the NDPS Act and remained behind bars in those cases from time to time -- Further, the age of the child was below five years, therefore, as per Section 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, custody of the minor child has rightly been given to the respondent/ mother -- Moreover, no offer has been made by the appellant to secure the future of the minor child – Appeal by father dismissed. Roxann Sharma’s case 2015 AIR (SCW) 2925 relied.

(Para 1,3,4)

A. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955), Section 13-B, 28 – Divorce by mutual consent – Maintainability of appeal -- Appeal against the decree of divorce u/s 13-B of the Act is maintainable.

(Para 7)

B. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955), Section 13-B, 28 – Divorce by mutual consent – Challenge to -- Keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, since the appellants are living together alongwith their child, Court viewed that it is never too late to mend ways -- Appeal allowed and the impugned judgment & decree vide which marriage of the parties was dissolved, set aside.

(Para 8)

A. Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 (32 of 1956), Section 6 -- Custody of minor child – Criminal writ jurisdiction – Jurisdiction of civil court -- No evidence on record in respect of ill nourishment, and, ill upkeep of the minor boy, by his mother and by wife’s  parents -- Under the statute, the mother of a minor child, less than seven years, is his/her natural guardian -- However, the statutory contemplation, does not override, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court concerned, to, while acting as parens patriae, to order for removal of the minor child, aged upto seven years, from the custody of his/her mother, to the custody of some more suitable, and, befitting person -- Petition held to be not maintainable, and, rather is gross mis-constituted -- However, leaving liberty to the petitioner, to, access the appropriate Civil Court concerned.

(Para 3-5)

B. Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Meeting with minor child – Right of father – Criminal writ petition -- Since the petitioner is the father of the minor boy, and, is required to be accessing him to bless him, and may, be to provide financial assistance for his upkeep and maintenance -- Therefore, the petitioner is permitted to access his minor baby, who is residing alongwith his mother -- Accessing be ensured to be facilitated by the SHO of the police station concerned.

(Para 6)

Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955), Section 5(iv), 11 -- Run-away couple – Marriage in prohibited relationship – Void marriage -- Police Protection – Right of – Even if assuming that the co-petitioners have entered into a legally prohibited marriage, as arising from theirs being sapindas to each other -- There is no bar entering into a live-in-relationship -- Court directed the respondents concerned, to decide representation within three weeks through a speaking order by affording all concerned, an adequate opportunity of personal hearing.

(Para 3-5)

Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 340 – Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955), Section 5(iii), 12 -- Run-away couple – Police protection petition -- Concealment of previous voidable marriage – Perjury proceedings – Requirement of -- Earlier husband never instituted any civil proceeding for annulling the marriage solemnized – Slumber of the previous husband, co-petitioner No.1 being a minor, further that co-petitioner No.1 is not alleging that she had entered into any sexual intercourse with the previous husband contrarily alleging that the earlier marriage never became consummated – Purported marriage construable to become never entered into amongst the concerned – Court declined proceedings of perjury against the petitioners -- Parents of co-petitioner No.1-wife directed to ensure not to interfere in the happy married life of the co-petitioners.

(Para 9-14)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 24 -- Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 (8 of 1890), Sections 19, 24, 25 – Transfer of case -- Custody of the minor child – Child residing with her maternal grandparent after the demise of her mother -- In case the matter is transferred out of District Rupnagar the maternal grandparent, who is 72 years of age, would need to travel a long distance along with the minor child – Evidence has partially been recorded – Transfer petition dismissed.

(Para 13)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 24 -- Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955), Section 9 – Transfer of petition from Sirsa to Mohali -- Restitution of conjugal rights petition -- Applicant/ petitioner is residing at Mohali -- Complaint under Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and complaint u/s 498-A of IPC are already pending at Mohali, it would be proper, appropriate and in the interest of justice if all cases are tried and decided at one place -- Transfer application allowed.

(Para 3, 6-8)

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955), Section 13-B – Divorce by mutual consent – Waiver of six months for second motion – Parties have been residing separately since 02.03.2018 and efforts at mediation have failed -- There are no claims pending and a period of more than a year and a half has elapsed before the presentation of the first motion – Period of six months waived and the date of hearing in the petition is advanced to 10.12.2021 and the parties permitted to get the second statement recorded on the said date of hearing.

(Para 2-4)

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955), Section 13 -- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 9 Rule 13 -- Ex-parte decree of divorce  – On application ex-parte judgment-decree set aside -- It is always desirable to decide a lis on merits rather than non-suiting a party on technical grounds -- Trial Court while decreeing the divorce petition had only examined the case set up by the husband before it and version of the respondent-wife was not there -- It is always better to arrive at a conclusion after considering the versions set up by the contesting parties, rather than taking into view the case presented before the Court by one litigant only – Court did not see any reason to upset the impugned order and same is upheld.

(Para 2, 7)

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955), Section 13-B – Constitution of India, Section 227 – Divorce by mutual consent – Waiver of six month period for second motion -- It is a case of broken marriage between the spouses with little chances of their resuming cohabitation and living together -- Spouses are stated to have settled all the issues between them in an amicable manner and asking them to wait for a period of six months shall only amount to prolong their agony -- Petition accepted, parties to move an application for preponing the date of hearing and then the Court may pass appropriate order in light of the order passed in the revision petition.

(Para 9, 10)

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955), Section 13-B, 14 – Divorce by mutual consent before expiry of one year of marriage – Exceptional hardship / depravity – Leave of court -- Waiving off the mandatory period of one year -- Marriage between the parties was solemnized on 15.02.2021 -- Soon after the marriage, they separated from each other and are residing separately since 17.02.2021 -- Both the parties have already received all the articles given by them at the time of marriage -- It has been further stated that none of them will claim anything with regard to the past or future maintenance – Since, the couple had stayed together only for two days, this is the sufficient ground to allow their application filed u/s 14 of the Act for waiving off the mandatory period of one year -- Decree of divorce by mutual consent granted.

(Para 5)

Constitution of India, Article 227 -- Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955), Section 13-B -- Divorce by mutual consent – Waiver of six months – Denial of -- Revisional against -- Marriage between the parties has irretrievably broken and now they have decided to part their ways, so that they both have an opportunity to live their lives in the manner they like and in the given situation -- Insistence of the Court below to wait to another six months would result in adding to their woes -- Revision petition allowed, Family Court, shall entertain the joint petition by waiving off six months period.

(Para 6)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 24 -- Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955), Section 9 – Constitution of India, Article 15(3), 51-A -- Restitution of conjugal rights – Transfer of case -- Complaint is already pending before the crime against women cell, Gurugram, it would be proper, appropriate and in the interest of justice if the same are tried and decided at one place -- Ethos as manifested under Article 51-A of Constitution of India envisage that it shall be fundamental duty of every citizen of India to uphold the dignity of woman -- In addition, per Article 15 (3), power has also been conferred on the State to make special provisions for women and children – Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 was amended w.e.f. 23.12.2003 that in case of a wife being the petitioner, jurisdiction was conferred to the Court within local limits of whose ordinary original civil jurisdiction, the wife is residing on the date of presentation of the petition -- Without going into the allegations/counter allegations, the transfer application allowed -- Petition transferred to the District Judge, Gurugram.

(Para 6-11)

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955), Section 24 – Maintenance pendente lite – Right after second marriage by wife -- Only a legally wedded wife would be entitled to the maintenance pendente lite -- Applicant-wife has not been able to specifically contradict the factum of second marriage, she has lost her valuable right of maintenance pendente lite – Application dismissed.

(Para 8)

Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 (32 of 1956), Section 6 (a) – Custody of minor – Writ of habeas corpus – Maintainability of -- Writ of habeas corpus would be maintainable to seek the custody of the minor child who is at the tender age of about 4 years -- Petitioner, a mother, entitled to maintain the writ of habeas corpus -- Detenue being a minor and under the age of 5 years should ordinarily be in the custody of the mother as stipulated u/s 6 (a) of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, unless the respondent is able to establish that she is unfit to do so – Writ allowed, custody given to the petitioner – Respondent no. 5 / Father is at liberty to approach the Guardian Court/Civil Judge for custody of the minor in accordance with law.

(Para 9-12)

A. Constitution of India, Article 142 – Power and jurisdiction of Single Judge under Article 142 of Constitution -- Provisions of Article 142 of the Constitution of India vests Supreme Court with the jurisdiction to pass any order or decree to do complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it -- A Judge sitting singly has the power and jurisdiction to issue orders or pass decrees as specified in the said Article.

(Para 7)

B. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955), Section 13(1)(ia), 13-B – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 25 – Supreme Court Rules, 2013, Order VI Rule (1) -- Constitution of India, Article 142, 145 -- Divorce petition – Transfer application – Grant of divorce by exercising power under Article 142 of Constitution – Jurisdiction of --  While sitting singly Supreme Court does not have the jurisdiction to take a decision on that plea made in the joint application -- One of the preconditions for exercise of jurisdiction under Article 142, the cause or the matter must be pending before it -- Transfer petition arose out of matrimonial dispute between the parties, but the expression ‘cause or matter pending before it’ cannot be stretched to cover all disputes originating from such matrimonial problem that can be resolved by Supreme Court, sitting singly, while hearing a transfer petition.

(Para 8)

C. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955), Section 13(1)(ia), 13-B – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 25 – Constitution of India, Article 142 – Transfer petition -- Divorce by mutual consent -- Grant of divorce by exercising power under Article 142 of Constitution – Jurisdiction of -- Joint application ought to be dealt with by a Bench comprising of two or more Hon’ble Judges as the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India may consider appropriate -- Since the parties have settled their dispute through the process of mediation, the transfer petition has lost its utility and stands disposed of -- File to be placed before Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India for appropriate directions for giving effect to the terms of settlement entered into by and between the parties and broadly reflected in the joint application.

(Para 9)

Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 (8 of 1890), Section 12, 25 -- Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 (32 of 1956), Section 6, Proviso -- Custody of minor children below 5 years -- On the date of separation from the husband, the daughter was about 2 ½ years of age and the son was about 5 years of age -- Application for interim custody by mother rejected on the ground that the father is looking after the minor children very well – At the time of passing impugned order, boy was 8 years and girl 4-1/2 years old – Held, proviso to Section 6(a) states that custody of a minor below 5 years of age shall ordinarily be with the mother, it does not stipulate that under all circumstances a child below 5 years must remain in the company of the mother -- Children are getting all the love, affection and care from their father -- There is no bar in law in their custody remaining with the father -- Revision petition filed by mother dismissed.

(Para 1-6)

A. Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 (8 of 1890), Section 7, 25 -- Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 (32 of 1956), Section 6 -- Custody of child – Better education – Role of -- Respondent-mother is an educated lady and when the custody of the daughter was given to her mother during the examinations period, her results were good, meaning thereby, the respondent-mother is more capable of providing quality education to her daughter than the appellant-father which is the most essential ingredient for the welfare, betterment and all round developments of the minor girl -- Thus, there is no occasion to displace her residence by giving custody of the girl child to the appellant-father.

(Para 15)

B. Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 (8 of 1890), Section 7, 25 -- Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 (32 of 1956), Section 6 -- Custody of Female child – Respondent-mother is the best person to educate and bring up her minor daughter and to effectively take care of her interest and welfare -- Mother shapes child’s world from the cradle by rocking, nurturing and instructing her child -- Particularly, the company of a mother is more valuable to a growing up female child unless there are compelling and justifiable reasons, a child should not be deprived of the company of the mother -- Especially for a growing girl of the age of 13 years which is her crucial phase of life being the major shift in thinking biologically which may help her to understand more effectively with the help of her mother and at this crucial teen age, her custody with the mother is necessary for her growth -- At this growing age, daughter looks for mother/a female companion with whom she can share and discuss certain issues comfortably -- There would be so many things which a daughter could not discuss with her father and as such mother shall be the best person to take care of her daughter at this growing age.

(Para 17, 18)

C. Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 (8 of 1890), Section 7, 25 -- Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 (32 of 1956), Section 6 -- Custody of female child to mother – Visiting rights to father -- Keeping in view the fact that a child needs the love and affection of both the father and the mother and anticipating optimistically that the girl child may serve as a bridge to fill the gap between the parents and the father-appellant also being the natural guardian of the girl child, the appellant-father is given visitation rights for meeting his daughter and for this purpose, he shall be at liberty to visit the child twice a month preferably on 2nd and 4^th Saturday(s) at the place and time mutually agreed between the parties and the respondent-mother shall not object to him meeting with the child and the respondent-mother will also allow the child to meet with the father during school vacations or on appropriate occasions.

(Para 22)

A. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 11, 25 -- Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955), Section 9 -- Restitution of conjugal rights petition -- Second transfer application – Res-judicata -- Dismissal of a petition for transfer, may not operate as res judicata, when a fresh petition is filed on change of circumstances.

(Para 8)

B. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 25 -- Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955), Section 9 – Restitution of conjugal rights petition -- Transfer application – Interest of justice – Power of -- When a case is at its final stage, Court will be extremely reluctant to order the transfer, as it may derail the entire process -- Prayer for transfer rejected -- Petitioner permitted to move an application for reopening of her evidence before the family Court – Family Court may take a lenient view on the said application and have the evidence on the side of the petitioner restored -- On all occasions except the date on which the petitioner is to be cross examined, the petitioner may be permitted by the Family Court to be represented by a counsel without being present -- If Video Conferencing facility is available, the petitioner may be granted the said facility -- On every occasion when the family Court wants the physical presence of the petitioner, the respondent shall pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- to the petitioner, towards expenses for travel and stay.

(Para 13-16)

Constitution of India, Article 21, 226 -- Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955), Section 4, 13-B -- Panchayati Divorce – Re-marriage with another girl – Police protection petition – Maintainability of -- In view of Section 4 of the Hindu Marriage Act,1955 all customs and usages ceased to have effect -- Alleged marriage would be illegal and against the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 inasmuch as this marriage has been contracted without the petitioner No.1 being legally divorced – Petition is held to be not maintainable at the behest of the petitioners – However as an individual either of the petitioners, if they apprehend any threat to their life or liberty, would be entitled to approach the Police for redressal of their apprehensions regarding threats to their life and liberty.

(Para 5-8)

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955) -- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 25 -- Matrimonial proceedings in Family Court – Trial through video conference -- Review petition – Earlier transfer petition was dismissed and direction was given for trial through video conferencing – Review petition on the ground that no video conferencing facility at Gautambudh Nagar, District Courts and also that video conferencing is not permissible in matrimonial matters – Held, due to ongoing pandemic, proceedings in all Courts are being conducted only through video conferencing -- Review petition dismissed.

(Para 1-4)