Explain about Amardeep Singh v. Harveen Kaur judgement

The case of Amardeep Singh v. Harveen Kaur was heard by the Supreme Court of India in 2017. The case dealt with the issue of whether a mutual consent divorce granted under Section 13B(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, can be revoked unilaterally by one of the parties.

The facts of the case are as follows: the parties, who were both Hindus, were married in 1994. In 2010, they filed a joint petition for divorce by mutual consent under Section 13B(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, which provides for divorce by mutual consent after a separation period of one year. The petition was granted by the court in January 2011, and a decree of divorce was issued.

However, in April 2011, the wife filed an application seeking to set aside the decree of divorce on the ground that she was coerced into giving her consent. The husband opposed the application, arguing that a mutual consent divorce cannot be revoked unilaterally by one party.

The Supreme Court, in its judgment on 12 September 2017, held that a mutual consent divorce granted under Section 13B(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act is irrevocable and that the consent given by both parties cannot be unilaterally withdrawn. The court stated that the policy underlying the provision for mutual consent divorce is to enable parties who have irreconcilable differences to end their marriage without acrimony or bitterness and that allowing one party to unilaterally revoke the consent would defeat that purpose.

The court also held that in cases where consent is alleged to have been obtained by fraud, coercion, or undue influence, the aggrieved party can seek appropriate remedies under the law, but the revocation of the mutual consent divorce is not one of them.

It is important to note that the specific facts and circumstances of each case may differ and that this case may not be applicable in all situations. Therefore, it is recommended to seek legal advice from a qualified lawyer for any specific legal issues or questions.


[2017] 8 S.C.R. 925 AMARDEEP SINGH v . HARVEEN KAUR (Civil Appeal No. 11158 of 2017) SEPTEMBER 12, 2017


Hindu Marriage Act, 1955: A B s.13B(2) – Mutual consent – Cooling period of 6 months – Object of – Held: The object of the cooling AMARDEEP SINGH v . HARVEEN KAUR 927 mutual consent only if there is no chance for reconciliation. The object of the provision is to enable the parties to dissolve a marriage by consent if the marriage has irretrievably broken down and to enable them to rehabilitate them as per available, West H District, New Delhi in H.M.A. No. I 059 of 2017.

AMARDEEP SINGH v . HARVEEN KAUR 929 K. V. Vishwanathan, Sr. Adv.(AC), Abhishek Kaushik, Ms. Vrinda A Bhandari, Mukunda Rao A., Ms. Jaishree Viswanathan, Pradeep Kr. Mishra, Ashish Upadhayay, T.R.B. Sivakumar, Ashish Virmani, Rohit) 9 SCC 309), Union of India v. Kirloskar Pneumatic Co. Ltd. [(1996) 4 SCC 453), the University of Allahabad v. Dr. Anand Prakash Mishra [(1997) JO SCC 264) and Karnataka SRTC v. Ashrafu/la Khan [(2002) 2 SC 560) H 2(201o)4 sec 393 AMARDEEP SINGH v . HARVEEN KAUR [ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J.] 931 Chawla v. Amit Chawla (2016)3 SCC 126; Nikhil Kumar v. Rupali Kumar (2016) 13 SCC 383 •(2009) 10 sec 415 H AMARDEEP SINGH v . HARVEEN KAUR [ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J.) 933 directory and if directory, whether could be dispensed with A even by the High Court in the exercise of its writ/appellate AMARDEEP SINGH v . HARVEEN KAUR [ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J.] 935 rehabilitation, the Court should not be powerless in enabling the parties A to have a better option. 17.

In determining the question of whether a provision is mandatory or directory, language alone is not always decisive. The Court has siblings where the parties are unable to appear in person for any just and valid reason as may satisfy the Court, to advance the interest of justice. AMARDEEP SINGH v . HARVEEN KAUR [ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J.] 937 23.

The parties are now at liberty to move the concerned court A for fresh consideration in light of this order. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. Devika Gujral Appeal disposed of.



Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Disclaimer & Confirmation

The present rule of Bar Council of India does not permit solicitation of work and advertising by legal practitioners and advocates. By accessing the Legal Light Consulting website, the user acknowledges that:

All information contained in our website is the intellectual property of the Legal Light Consulting law firm.

error: Content is protected !!