Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Santosh Vs. Kishan

Santosh vs Kishan

Type Court Judgment Court Rajasthan Decided Jan 20, 2010
~3 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/850646

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Rajasthan High Court
Judge
Decided On
Subject
Family

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

-

Key legal issue
Family

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Santosh

Respondent

Kishan

Legal References

Cases Referred
and Vijay Kumar v. Smt. Surinder Kaur

Excerpt

- vineet kothari, j.1. heard learned counsels.2. this appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 21.4.2006 of the learned district judge, pali by which the application under section 9 of the hindu marriage act was allowed in favour of the respondent-husband kishan by the learned trial court, however, the said parties did not live in the same matrimonial home despite said decree of the learned court below.3. during the pendency of this appeal, this court tried for reconciliation between the parties but the reconciliation failed. therefore, the parties by mutual consent filed the present application i.e. i.a. no. 952/2010 on 20.1.2010 under section 13b of the act for seeking divorce by mutual consent in this court.4. both the learned counsels submitted that the parties by mutual consent seek this divorce under the terms of mutual consent. accordingly, the appellant-wife has returned back the gold ornaments received by her at the time of marriage with respondent-husband and further paid rs. 35,000/- to the respondent-husband kishan under the said agreement. the appellant-wife is working as nurse in the government hospital, sojat city whereas the respondent-husband kishan is not employed anywhere and was making his livelihood by doing iron work for the people as he belongs to dhobi caste.5. this court has perused the application under section 13b of the act which is duly supported by the affidavits of both the parties and they are present in court and has also heard learned counsels.6. learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the judgment of the hon'ble supreme court in k. thiruvengadam and anr. v. nill (2008) 1 femi-juris c.c. 134(mad), amit jain v. taruna jain 2008 m.l.r. 111, anamika shrivastava v. vivek shrivastava 2008 m.l.r. 264 and vijay kumar v. smt. surinder kaur @ sunita 2008 m.l.r. 465 in which it has been held that the waiting period of 6 months before the application under section 13b of the act is decided and divorce decree is granted by.....

Full Judgment

Vineet Kothari, J.

1. Heard learned Counsels.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 21.4.2006 of the learned District Judge, Pali by which the application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act was allowed in favour of the respondent-husband Kishan by the learned trial court, however, the said parties did not live in the same matrimonial home despite said decree of the learned court below.

3. During the pendency of this appeal, this Court tried for reconciliation between the parties but the reconciliation failed. Therefore, the parties by mutual consent filed the present application i.e. I.A. No. 952/2010 on 20.1.2010 under Section 13B of the Act for seeking divorce by mutual consent in this Court.

4. Both the learned Counsels submitted that the parties by mutual consent seek this divorce under the terms of mutual consent. Accordingly, the appellant-wife has returned back the gold ornaments received by her at the time of marriage with respondent-husband and further paid Rs. 35,000/- to the respondent-husband Kishan under the said agreement. The appellant-wife is working as Nurse in the Government Hospital, Sojat City whereas the respondent-husband Kishan is not employed anywhere and was making his livelihood by doing iron work for the people as he belongs to Dhobi caste.

5. This Court has perused the application under Section 13B of the Act which is duly supported by the affidavits of both the parties and they are present in Court and has also heard learned Counsels.

6. Learned Counsel for the appellant relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K. Thiruvengadam and Anr. v. Nill (2008) 1 Femi-Juris C.C. 134(Mad), Amit Jain v. Taruna Jain 2008 M.L.R. 111, Anamika Shrivastava v. Vivek Shrivastava 2008 M.L.R. 264 and Vijay Kumar v. Smt. Surinder Kaur @ Sunita 2008 M.L.R. 465 in which it has been held that the waiting period of 6 months before the application under Section 13B of the Act is decided and divorce decree is granted by mutual consent under Section 13B of the Act can be waived by the Court even at the appellate stage and the decree of divorce by mutual consent can be granted.

7. Having heard learned Counsels and in view of the aforesaid judgments and the mutual consent of the parties duly supported by their affidavits, this Court allows the present appeal and setting aside the impugned judgment of learned trial court dated 21.4.2006 and allowing the application under Section 13B(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act grants divorce by mutual consent to both the parties. The marriage between the appellant-wife Santosh daughter of Pratap, by caste Dhobi with respondent-husband Kishan S/o Dhola, by caste Dhobi solemnized on 11th May, 2003 by Hindu Rites shall be deemed to be dissolved with effect from today. Divorce decree under Section 13B be made accordingly.

8. Appeal is accordingly disposed of. No costs.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial