MANISH GOEL Vs. ROHINI GOEL
LAWS(SC)-2010-2-17
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: DELHI)
Decided on
February 05,2010
MANISH GOEL
Appellant
VERSUS
ROHINI GOEL
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
PREM CHAND GARG VS. EXCISE COMMISSIONER U P [REFERRED TO]JAI SINGH VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
A R ANTULAY VS. R S NAYAK [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF PUNJAB VS. RENUKA SINGLA [REFERRED TO]
AWADH BIHARI YADAV SITA RAM GOPE VS. STATE OF BIHAR [REFERRED TO]
BONKYA ALIAS BHARAT SHIVAJI MANE OTHERS VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH VS. HARISH CHANDRA [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. KIRLOSKAR PNEUMATIC COMPANY LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
BUDDHI KOTA SUBBARAO VS. K PARASARAN [REFERRED TO]
VICE CHANCELLOR UNIVERSITY OF ALLAHABAD VS. ANAND PRAKASH MISHRA [REFERRED TO]
SUPREME COURT BAR ASSOCIATION VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
COMMON CAUSE A REGISTERED SOCIETY VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
M S AHLAWAT VS. STATE OF HARYANA [REFERRED TO]
M C MEHTA VS. KAMAL NATH [REFERRED TO]
E S P RAJARAM VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
CHETAN DASS VS. KAMLA DEVI [REFERRED TO]
KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION VS. ASHRAFULLA KHAN [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF PUNJAB VS. RAJESH SYAL [REFERRED TO]
GOVERNMENT OF WEST BENGAL VS. TARUN K ROY [REFERRED TO]
TERI OAT ESTATES P LIMITED VS. U T CHANDIGARH [REFERRED TO]
TEXTILE LABOUR ASSOCIATION VS. OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF KARNATAKA VS. AMEERBI [REFERRED TO]
ARUNIMA BARUAH VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. SHARDINDU [REFERRED TO]
BHARAT SEWA SANSTHAN VS. U P ELECTRONICS CORPORATION LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
VISHNU DUTT SHARMA VS. MANJU SHARMA [REFERRED TO]
LAXMIDAS MORARJI VS. BEHROSE DARAB MADAN [REFERRED TO]
Cited Judgements :-
SUKHENDU DAS VS. RITA MUKHERJEE [LAWS(SC)-2017-10-12] [REFERRED TO]BEAUTY SYIEMLIEH AND ORS. VS. THE STATE OF MEGHALAYA AND ORS. [LAWS(MEGH)-2015-7-9] [REFERRED TO]
DEEPAK KUMAR VS. POONAM RANI [LAWS(P&H)-2011-2-219] [REFERRED TO]
SUBRATA BASU VS. THE STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS. [LAWS(PAT)-2012-5-105] [REFERRED TO]
K VEMBADURAI VS. PADMAVATHY [LAWS(MAD)-2011-3-138] [REFERRED TO]
SANGEETA VS. ARUN JOON [LAWS(DLH)-2017-5-328] [REFERRED TO]
ARVIND KUMAR VS. NIRMALA BHARTI @ NEHA [LAWS(DLH)-2011-8-462] [REFERRED TO]
MAA SANTOSHI SWA SAHAYATA SAMUH VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(CHH)-2022-4-132] [REFERRED TO]
RAKESH SUKANUJI VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2014-4-100] [REFERRED TO]
JAYANTI SARKAR VS. DIBRUGARH UNIVERSITY AND ORS. [LAWS(GAU)-2015-8-71] [REFERRED TO]
JAYANTA SAIKIA S/O SADAN CHANDRA SAIKIA VS. PURBANCHAL EDUCATION WELFARE SOCIETY (PEWS) AND 2 ORS [LAWS(GAU)-2019-1-13] [REFERRED TO]
ANJALI SHARMA DUTTA VS. STATE OF ASSAM [LAWS(GAU)-2018-9-162] [REFERRED TO]
POOJA DESWAL VS. SAGAR DESWAL [LAWS(P&H)-2014-6-13] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF M P VS. VINAYAK RAO [LAWS(MPH)-2010-4-47] [REFERRED TO]
M.P. STATE COOPERATIVE MARKETING FEDERATION MARYADIT VS. M/S KILPEST INDIA LTD [LAWS(MPH)-2013-8-28] [REFERRED TO]
NANDRAM PAL VS. STATE OF M P [LAWS(MPH)-2014-3-29] [REFERRED TO]
SELVI J. JAYALALITHAA VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(SC)-2013-9-88] [REFERRED TO]
HARIDAS N.A. VS. PADMANABHAN P.P. [LAWS(KER)-2022-12-31] [REFERRED TO]
REKHA DEVI VS. DIVISIONAL MANAGER, NEW INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED [LAWS(PAT)-2016-7-28] [REFERRED TO]
SWAPNIL VERMA AND ORS. VS. PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT [LAWS(ALL)-2015-7-55] [REFERRED TO]
SAURABH GUPTA VS. UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER [LAWS(ALL)-2017-12-122] [REFERRED TO]
CHANDRAPAL SINGH VS. STATE OF U. P. [LAWS(ALL)-2023-11-74] [REFERRED TO]
SWARIT VERMA VS. KANCHAN VERMA [LAWS(MPH)-2021-9-130] [REFERRED TO]
V PERIAKARUPPAN AMBALAM VS. K SIVASHANKARAN [LAWS(MAD)-2011-3-394] [REFERRED TO]
DINESH VS. SHANTIBAI [LAWS(MPH)-2011-10-18] [REFERRED TO]
HITESH BHATNAGAR VS. DEEPA BHATNAGAR [LAWS(SC)-2011-4-87] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF U P VS. SANJAY KUMAR [LAWS(SC)-2012-8-45] [REFERRED TO]
VEERASAMY VS. JAYANTHI @ JAYALAKSHMI [LAWS(MAD)-2017-11-92] [REFERRED TO]
PRAMOD KUMAR VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(MAD)-2013-4-78] [REFERRED TO]
C.M.SURESH VS. HEMAMALINI [LAWS(MAD)-2019-2-178] [REFERRED TO]
SONAM RAWAL VS. UNIVERSITY OF DELHI [LAWS(DLH)-2023-1-320] [REFERRED TO]
ANTONY C.J. AND ORS. VS. CORPORATION OF KOCHI AND ORS. [LAWS(KER)-2021-3-131] [REFERRED TO]
KANAK MANJARI KAR VS. SUSANTA KUMAR DASH [LAWS(ORI)-2014-10-48] [REFERRED TO]
AMITA JOSHI VS. SANDEEP KUMAR [LAWS(P&H)-2017-8-192] [REFERRED TO]
RABINDRA NATH GHOSH VS. BIKASH KUMAR BISWAS [LAWS(CAL)-2013-6-93] [REFERRED TO]
RITA BHATTACHARJEE VS. SANTIRANJAN BHATTACHARJEE [LAWS(CAL)-2011-9-19] [REFERRED TO]
PRIYANKA CHAUHAN VS. PRINCIPAL JUDGE FAMILY COURT [LAWS(ALL)-2021-2-34] [REFERRED TO]
A B BHASKARA RAO VS. INSPECTOR OF POLICE CBI VISAKHAPATNAM [LAWS(SC)-2011-9-125] [REFERRED TO]
NEETI MALVIYA VS. RAKESH MALVIYA [LAWS(SC)-2010-5-8] [REFERRED TO]
SUNITA VS. YOGESH KUMAR [LAWS(P&H)-2021-4-65] [REFERRED TO]
SINDHU K. RAJAN VS. M. AJITH [LAWS(KER)-2014-7-25] [REFERRED TO]
AMARESH NARAYAN CHOWDHURY VS. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS [LAWS(GAU)-2015-11-74] [REFERRED TO]
KARNATAKA RESIDENTIAL EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS SOCIETY VS. VISHVANATH M. S. [LAWS(KAR)-2023-7-1621] [REFERRED TO]
M.K. GUPTA VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(CA)-2014-2-1] [REFERRED TO]
KULDEEP SINGH SHEKHAWAT VS. DEERAJ KANWAR W/O KULDEEP SINGH SHEKHAWAT [LAWS(RAJ)-2019-9-269] [REFERRED TO]
R. SRINIVAS KUMAR VS. R. SHAMETHA [LAWS(SC)-2019-10-36] [REFERRED TO]
LINISH P MATHEW VS. MRUTHULA MATHEW [LAWS(KER)-2012-7-341] [REFERRED TO]
SIVASANKARAN VS. SANTHIMEENAL [LAWS(MAD)-2018-9-336] [REFERRED TO]
MARTIN SAGAYANADIN VS. ANTOINETTE [LAWS(MAD)-2019-1-686] [REFERRED TO]
SHILPA SAILESH VS. VARUN SREENIVASAN [LAWS(SC)-2023-5-2] [REFERRED TO]
JINDAL STEEL AND POWER LTD VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2011-12-249] [REFERRED TO]
KUNAL RANAWAT VS. RATIVA JAHAN RANAWAT [LAWS(HPH)-2017-7-49] [REFERRED TO]
SUPRIYA A. VS. VIMAL ANBALAGAN [LAWS(ALL)-2021-12-104] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF U. P. VS. RAJ BAHADUR PASTOR [LAWS(ALL)-2022-1-125] [REFERRED TO]
NIRMAL NATH VS. VINEETA DOWARAH [LAWS(GAU)-2012-12-30] [REFERRED TO]
BHULU RANI DEY VS. RABI DEY [LAWS(GAU)-2012-4-74] [REFERRED TO]
NURUL HUDA CHOUDHURY VS. STATE OF ASSAM [LAWS(GAU)-2018-3-55] [REFERRED TO]
SANJEEV KUMAR VS. MEENAKSHI @ RITU PRASHER [LAWS(P&H)-2011-9-130] [REFERRED TO]
AMARDEEP SINGH VS. HARVEEN KAUR [LAWS(SC)-2017-9-31] [REFERRED TO]
RANJEET KAUR VS. SURENDRA SINGH GILL [LAWS(MPH)-2012-1-54] [REFERRED TO]
SANJEEV PARASHAR VS. MITHLESH KUMARI [LAWS(MPH)-2013-9-368] [REFERRED]
STATE OF BIHAR VS. ARVIND KUMAR [LAWS(SC)-2012-7-54] [REFERRED TO]
JIGNESHKUMAR DILIPBHAI PATEL VS. PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL COURT [LAWS(GJH)-2013-11-37] [REFERRED TO]
SHRI ARVIND KUMAR VS. SMT. NIRMALA BHARTI @ NEHA [LAWS(DLH)-2011-8-507] [REFERRED TO]
VIMLESH KUMARI AND 16 ORS ; SARALA DEVI KUSHWAHA AND ANR ; BRIJESH KUMAR MAURYA; SUSHAMA DEVI; ALOK KUMAR PAL AND 46 ORS ; KM NEELAM KUMARI VISHWAKARMA AND ANR ; KAPIL DEV; SUNITA DEVI; ANKITA RAI VS. STATE OF U P & 4 ORS [LAWS(ALL)-2017-12-102] [REFERRED TO]
ANJALI COLLEGE OF PHARMACY AND SCIENCE VS. PHARMACY COUNCIL OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2023-1-89] [REFERRED TO]
SHARDABEN PARSOTTAMBHAI PARMAR VS. STATE OF GUJARAT AND ORS. [LAWS(GJH)-2015-4-304] [REFERRED TO]
K R SRINIVAS VS. DHARMAVARAM SRIDEVI [LAWS(APH)-2012-3-42] [REFERRED TO]
PHONOGRAPHIC PERFORMANCE LTD. AND ORS. VS. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. [LAWS(DLH)-2015-4-15] [REFERRED TO]
V VS. N [LAWS(BOM)-2013-10-4] [REFERRED TO 5.]
RAJESH BURMAN VS. MITUL CHATTERJEE [LAWS(CAL)-2011-9-107] [REFERRED TO]
MAHARSHI DAYANAND UNIVERSITY VS. SURJEET KAUR [LAWS(SC)-2010-7-108] [REFERRED TO]
MRIDUL PANWAR VS. PRIYANKA FITHANI [LAWS(RAJ)-2019-8-103] [REFERRED TO]
NITISH AGARWAL VS. ANCHAL SINGHAL [LAWS(RAJ)-2019-9-272] [REFERRED TO]
JANTA VIDYALAYA SHIKSHA SAMITI VS. JIWAJI UNIVERSITY, GWALIOR [LAWS(MPH)-2013-8-171] [REFERRED TO]
BOBITA SAIKIA DEKA VS. STATE OF ASSAM [LAWS(GAU)-2018-9-151] [REFERRED TO]
RAKESH KUMAR VS. SHASHI [LAWS(HPH)-2023-12-42] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
B.S. Chauhan, J. -
(1.)This case reveals a very sorry state of affairs that the parties merely being highly qualified, have claimed even to be higher and above the law, and have a vested right to use, misuse and abuse the process of the Court. Petitioner, the husband, possesses the qualifications of CA, CS and ICWA, while the proforma respondent-wife is a Doctor (M.D., Radio-Diagnosis) by profession. The parties got married on 23rd July, 2008 in Delhi. Their marriage ran into rough weather and relations between them became strained immediately after the marriage and they are living separately since 24.10.2008. Petitioner-husband filed a Matrimonial Case under Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter called as "the Act") for annulment of marriage before a competent Court at Gurgaon. The respondent-wife, Smt. Rohini Goel filed a petition under Section 12 r/w Section 23 of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 before the competent Court at Delhi. An FIR was also lodged by her against petitioner-husband and his family members under Sections 498A, 406 and 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 at PS Janakpuri, New Delhi.
(2.)It is stated at the Bar that by persuasion of the family members and friends, the parties entered into a compromise and prepared a Memorandum of Understanding dated 13.11.2009 in the proceedings pending before the Mediation Centre, Delhi by which they agreed on terms and conditions incorporated therein, to settle all their disputes and also for dissolution of their marriage. The parties filed an application under Section 13B(1) of the Act before the Family Court, i.e. ADJ-04 (West) Delhi seeking divorce by mutual consent. The said HMA No. 456 of 2009 came before the Court and it recorded the statement of parties on 16.11.2009. The parties moved another HMA No. 457 of 2009 to waive the statutory period of six months in filing the second petition. However, the Court rejected the said application vide order dated 1.12.2009 observing that the Court was not competent to waive the required statutory period of six months under the Act and such a waiver was permissible only under the directions of this Court as held by this Court in Anil Kumar Jain v. Maya Jain, (2009) 10 SCC 415. Hence, this petition.
(3.)The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no prohibition in law in entertaining the petition under Article 136 of the Constitution against the order of the Family Court and in such an eventuality, there was no occasion for the petitioner to approach the High Court as the relief sought herein cannot be granted by any court other than this Court. Thus, the petitioner has a right to approach this Court against the order of the Family Court and the petitioner cannot be non-suited on this ground alone.
(2.)It is stated at the Bar that by persuasion of the family members and friends, the parties entered into a compromise and prepared a Memorandum of Understanding dated 13.11.2009 in the proceedings pending before the Mediation Centre, Delhi by which they agreed on terms and conditions incorporated therein, to settle all their disputes and also for dissolution of their marriage. The parties filed an application under Section 13B(1) of the Act before the Family Court, i.e. ADJ-04 (West) Delhi seeking divorce by mutual consent. The said HMA No. 456 of 2009 came before the Court and it recorded the statement of parties on 16.11.2009. The parties moved another HMA No. 457 of 2009 to waive the statutory period of six months in filing the second petition. However, the Court rejected the said application vide order dated 1.12.2009 observing that the Court was not competent to waive the required statutory period of six months under the Act and such a waiver was permissible only under the directions of this Court as held by this Court in Anil Kumar Jain v. Maya Jain, (2009) 10 SCC 415. Hence, this petition.
(3.)The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no prohibition in law in entertaining the petition under Article 136 of the Constitution against the order of the Family Court and in such an eventuality, there was no occasion for the petitioner to approach the High Court as the relief sought herein cannot be granted by any court other than this Court. Thus, the petitioner has a right to approach this Court against the order of the Family Court and the petitioner cannot be non-suited on this ground alone.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.