HC-NIC

UNIMARKS LEGAL SOLUTIONS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 20889 of 2015
==========================================================

NILAMBEN BHARATKUMAR PATEL....Petitioner(s)

Versus
BHARATKUMAR DAHYABHAI PATEL....Respondent(s)
==========================================================

Appearance:
MR. PR BRAHMBHATT, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR. MEET M. THAKKER, ADVOCATE for the Respondent No.1
==========================================================

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.D.KOTHARI

Date : 22/12/2015
ORAL ORDER

1.

Rule. Learned advocate Mr. Meet M. Thakker waives

service of Rule on behalf of the respondent No.1.

2.

Learned advocate Mr. Meet M. Thakker undertakes

to file his appearance.

3.

Heard learned advocate for the parties.

4.

The petitioner claimed to be aggrieved refusal by

trial Court to waive 6 months period in Hindu Marriage

Petition No. 8 of 2015 for divorce by mutual consent.
5.

Marriage of the petitioner with the respondent

was solemnized on 30.10.2002. Thereafter, few years

the parties resided together. Since the year 2008 they
are

residing

customary

separately.

divorce.

The

They

said

have

deed

also

was

obtained

executed

on

18.08.2008. Thereafter, the parties have filed divorce

Page 1 of 3
Page 1 of 3

Created On Sun Dec 27 18:56:22 IST 2015

HC-NIC

UNIMARKS LEGAL SOLUTIONS

petition by mutual consent on 24.08.2015, then the

application of waive 6 months period was filed on
07.10.2015. Attention was also drawn of this Court to
the order passed by the trial Court.
6.

In very short order the trial Court has rejected

the application only on the ground that Court has no

power

to

waive

the

to

waive

application
details,

it

considered

appears
the

application

months

the

that

said

appears

period.

months

the

to

be

period

trial

application.

Though

Court

was

in

has

not

of

the

considering

the

Rejection

without

the

facts and circumstances of the case.

7.

Relevant circumstances namely the fact that the

parties are residing separately more than 7 years,

execution of divorce deed to obtain customary divorce,
reason of urgency expressed on behalf of one of the
spouses namely the wife, are not considered by the
trial Court. Besides these circumstances the trial
Court
urgency

could
and

have
could

verified
have

their

willingness

satisfied

itself.

and

Herein

attention of the trial Court was drawn to the judgment

of Jigneshkumar Dilipbhai Patel v. Principal Senior
Civil

Judge,

reported

in

(2014)

GLR

Page

566.

Referring this judgment the trial Court rejected the

application.

Applicability

of

the

Jigneshkumar

Dilipbhai Patel (supra) case or not is not considered

by the trial Court.
8.

At the time of hearing learned advocate for the

petitioner has also drawn attention to order passed by

Page 2 of 3
Page 2 of 3

Created On Sun Dec 27 18:56:22 IST 2015

HC-NIC

UNIMARKS LEGAL SOLUTIONS

this Court in Special Civil Application No. 3615 of

2013.
9.

As stated by learned advocate for the petitioner

reason for urgency on the ground that one of the

spouses namely wife intends to remarry. The would be
husband resides at abroad and passport procedure are
to be completed preferably by the end of January,
2016.
10. In
petition

view
is

of

the

allowed.

above
6

discussion,

months

period

the

present

for

seeking

divorce is hereby waived. The order dated 11.12.2015

passed by the trial Court is hereby set aside. Rule is
made absolute.
Direct service is permitted.

(R.D.KOTHARI, J.)
BD Songara

Page 3 of 3
Page 3 of 3

Created On Sun Dec 27 18:56:22 IST 2015