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 separately. They have also obtained

customary divorce. The said deed was executed on

18.08.2008. Thereafter, the parties have filed divorce

Page 1 of 3

Page 1 of HC-NIC Created On Sun Dec 27 18:56:22 IST 20153

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 6 months period. Though the

application to waive the 6 months period was in

details, it appears that the trial Court has not

considered the said application. Rejection of the

application appears to be without considering 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 could have verified their willingness and

urgency and could have satisfied itself. 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 HC-NIC Created On Sun Dec 27 18:56:22 IST 20153

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 view of the above discussion, the present

petition is allowed. 6 months period 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 HC-NIC Created On Sun Dec 27 18:56:22 IST 20153