Shivani Sharma v. Rahul Sharma
!
"#$# % '('
!
""#
! $
%
%
"& "'"( ) *
+ , -.
/% 0 . ! 0- 1.
2 3
14 '5 "'"( 6 6%
7 % % %
-
+6
+ - . -
9
6
-.
1 % 5&& % -
- % $ 0 6
6
. % '<
%
6
. " . -
-
-
6
'"
"'"( 6
% 9
6 -
9
"'"" 6 +- -
6
-.
6 - . .
-. -. 6.
=* ! ) *
+:, 6
. 6
-. -
.
6 - - -.
=* !
6
9
-.
6 6 .
. .
6 -.
% -. 6.
.
9
'"
"'"( -
-.
%
%
:
$ -
4
:'
'7 "'"( ) *
+:,
) %% -
.
%
'< .
%
-
-
%
-
%
-. -
6
-
- % %
>
%%
6 -
.
- -9
. -.
% 6 * 6 % -
6 -
. 6
-.
% 6
9 . - - . .
(
9 . % '"
"'"(
%
6 9 '7 '
"'"&
. *
"& "'"( ) *
+&, 6 9 .
-.
6%
7 . %
%
-
%
"'""
6
% %%
- 6 -
-.
/% 0 . ! %
"& "'"( > - - -
. .
- 6 -.
- 6 0 . !
* .
$
% -
9%
1?-
!
2
!
"!# $% $ &&"
!'()*+',-+-./"0/"/'!...--+-. :
! -
(
6 @
%
- %
.
.
6
%
.
%
6
'"
"'"(
.
7
6 -
:;
-
*
<
1?-
!
-
1?-
!
/""& !12
""!
-+.(3 (4) -
! 6 6
6
.
:;)",
6 6 @ - % 6 -
. 6 % 7
:;)",
6 .
- . 6 !
*
6
@
% %
$
6
6 . & %
. : . 6 - -.
1?-
!
% 6
6
6%
%
- 6
6 - -. % 6 . 6 .
% %. 6
1?-
! 6
1% ! 6 0 . ! 6
* % 6 ("
! $ %
-. 6%
. 7 :;)",
9% - 6+ 23. It is well settled that a judgment is a precedent for the issue of law that is raised and decided. A judgment is not to be read in the manner of a statute and construed with pedantic rigidity. In Amardeep Singh v. Harveen Kaur (supra), this
* Court held that the statutory waiting period of at least six months mentioned in Section 13B (2) of the Hindu Marriage Act was not mandatory but directory and that it would be open to the Court to exercise its discretion to waive the requirement of Section 13B(2), having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, if there was no possibility of reconciliation between the spouses, and the waiting period would serve no purpose except to prolong their agony.
28. In this Case, as observed above, the parties are both well educated and highly placed government officers. They have been married for about 15 months. The marriage was a nonstarter. Admittedly, the parties lived together only for three days, after which they have separated on account of irreconcilable differences. The parties have lived apart for the entire period of their marriage except three days. It is jointly stated by the parties that efforts at reconciliation have failed. The parties are unwilling to live together as husband and wife. Even after over 14 months of separation, the parties still want to go ahead with the divorce. No useful purpose would be served by making the parties wait, except to prolong their agony.
29. The appeal is, therefore, allowed. The impugned order dated 17 th November, 2021 passed by the High Court and the impugned order dated 12th October, 2021 passed by the Family Court, Hissar are set aside."
@
1?-
!
% 9
%
'< .
%
.
. % 6
6 -
-
% -. -
"'"" . %
%
%%
.
-
-
6
. 6
. % 6 6 . 6 -
.
- -
-
%
-. -
6
0
-
.
7 ) < ,
%
.
"'""
.
. 6 % %.
-
-
% -
6
"& "'"(
%
6 6
'7 '
"'"& -
0 . ! % 0 . ! 6
6 %
+
6 ( .
%
%
- 6
6 %4
0 . ! 6
.
1 % 6 6
,- ./ 01
/
6 '
A
%4 4C A
-
4C