Sh. Bherav Dutt vs Unknown on 20 January, 2010


On January 20, 2010, the Additional District Judge of Delhi, Ms. Raj Rani Mittra, presided over the case of Sh. Bherav Dutt vs Unknown. This case involved a petition filed under Section 13-B (1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking the dissolution of marriage by mutual consent between Sh. Bherav Dutt and Smt. Seema B. Dutt.


The petitioners, Sh. Bherav Dutt and Smt. Seema B. Dutt, were married on November 29, 2004, according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. Their matrimonial home was located in Mahavir Enclave-I, New Delhi. Despite the consummation of the marriage, the couple had no children and had been living separately since October 2005 due to differences in temperament and attitude. Both parties decided to seek a divorce by mutual consent and filed a joint petition under Section 13-B (1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

Key Arguments

The petitioners’ advocates, Sh. Zakir Hussain and Sh. Ravindra Kumar Pandey for petitioner No. 1, and Sh. Vinod Kumar Sharma for petitioner No. 2, presented their case to the court. They argued that the couple had mutually agreed to dissolve their marriage and had amicably settled all claims regarding dowry, istridhan, alimony, and maintenance. They emphasized that both parties had been living separately for over four years and there was no possibility of reconciliation.

Court’s Observations

The court acknowledged the prolonged separation of the petitioners and their inability to resume cohabitation. It noted that both parties had settled all disputes and agreed to abide by the terms set out in their petition. The court also observed that the petitioners’ consent for divorce was given freely, without any force, fraud, threat, pressure, coercion, or undue influence. The court’s primary concern was ensuring that the requirements of Section 13-B (1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 were satisfied.

Court’s Decision

After considering the arguments and the evidence, the court allowed the petition under Section 13-B (1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The court, however, noted that the marriage could not be dissolved immediately due to the provisions of Section 13-B (2) of the Act, which requires a mandatory waiting period before the final decree of divorce can be granted. The petitioners were advised to try to reconcile their differences during this period. If reconciliation was not possible, they could move their second motion petition within the statutory period to finalize the divorce.


The case of Sh. Bherav Dutt vs Unknown underscores the importance of adhering to legal provisions in matrimonial disputes. The court’s decision to allow the petition for divorce by mutual consent, while ensuring compliance with Section 13-B (2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, highlights the judiciary’s balanced approach in handling such sensitive matters. The petitioners were given an opportunity to reconsider their decision, reflecting the court’s commitment to the larger interest of the parties involved.


Leave a Reply

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