1997 JTR(SC) 844
1998 AIR(SCW) 4126 ; 2000 38 AllCriC 614 ; 2000 38 AllLR 614 ; 1998 9 JT 270 ; 1997 11 SCC 81 ; 1997 KHC 3829
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M M Punchhi, S B Majmudar, J.
MADHURI MEHTA, PETITIONER
VERSUS
MEET VERMA, RESPONDENT.
Transfer Petition (C) No. 830 of 1996, decided on May 7, 1997.
The Supreme Court can exercise its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to grant a divorce by mutual consent and ensure that visitation rights are balanced to protect the rights of both the parent and the child.
Act
Referred
:CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE
: S.25
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA: Art.142
HINDU MARRIAGE ACT: S.13(b)
(A) Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Section 13-B - Constitution of India - Article 142 - Dissolution of marriage by mutual consent - Application for divorce filed during transfer petition proceedings - Provision for child's visitation rights - Right of child to visit father was provided, but no corresponding right for father to visit child - Such arrangement violates the rights of both the child and the father - Husband entitled to visitation rights subject to prior intimation to the mother - Court empowered under Article 142 to grant divorce by mutual consent. (Para 1)
Facts of the case:
Parties, both highly educated professionals, had been estranged since January 1996. Both had previous marriages that ended in death or divorce. During the hearing of a transfer petition, they jointly applied for dissolution of marriage by mutual consent. A divorce petition was also pending in the Family Court.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the absence of visitation rights for the father was a violation of the rights of both the father and the child.
Issues: Whether the court could grant a divorce by mutual consent under Article 142 of the Constitution and whether the father should be granted visitation rights to the child.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that it possesses the power under Article 142 of the Constitution to grant a divorce by mutual consent and that the father must have a right of visitation to the child to protect the rights of both the parent and the child.
Result: Divorce granted by mutual consent; transfer petition and divorce petition disposed of.
Facts of the case:
Parties, both highly educated professionals, had been estranged since January 1996. Both had previous marriages that ended in death or divorce. During the hearing of a transfer petition, they jointly applied for dissolution of marriage by mutual consent. A divorce petition was also pending in the Family Court.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the absence of visitation rights for the father was a violation of the rights of both the father and the child.
Issues: Whether the court could grant a divorce by mutual consent under Article 142 of the Constitution and whether the father should be granted visitation rights to the child.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that it possesses the power under Article 142 of the Constitution to grant a divorce by mutual consent and that the father must have a right of visitation to the child to protect the rights of both the parent and the child.
Result: Divorce granted by mutual consent; transfer petition and divorce petition disposed of.
ORDER
1. During the course of hearing of this transfer petition, parties have jointly made an application under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 before us praying for dissolution of their marriage by mutual consent and in the body of the application a provision has been made for their only child. Though the child has been conferred the right to visit his father as and when he likes, there is no corresponding right with the father to visit his child. That state of affairs would be violating the rights of the child and the father. The husband will, thus, have a right of visitation to see his child but after giving due intimation to the mother. The parties have been estranged and have kept apart since January 1996. Earlier to the present status, the parties had their earlier marriages broken or disrupted. The husband lost his wife in a vehicular accident and the wife had divorced her earlier husband. In this background their differences can well be appreciated when both of them are highly educated doctors. Keeping that in view, we entertain this application and grant them divorce by mutual consent in exercise of our powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, for which there is ample authority reflective from past decisions of this Court. The divorce petition pending in the Family Court at Patna, shall stand disposed of automatically by this order.
2. The transfer petition and the divorce petition are disposed of accordingly.