Search results
Two children were born in 1995 and 2003 respectively. Since 2008 the parties are living separately. Disputes between the parties gave rise to civil and criminal proceedings. Finally, on 28 th April, 2017 a settlement was arrived at to resolve all the disputes and seeks divorce by mutual consent.
Apr 15, 2022 · Amardeep Singh vs. Harveen Kaur case is one of the recent landmark cases in the development of family law as it clarified the issue of whether the minimum period of six months stipulated under section 13(B)(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for a motion for passing a decree of divorce based on mutual consent mandatory or can be relaxed in any ...
Sep 16, 2021 · Facts: On 16.01.2001, the Appellant ( Amardeep Singh) got married to the Respondent ( Harveen Kaur ). Out of their wedlock, two children were born in 1995 and 2003 respectively. Some disputes arose between them, and since 2008 the couple started living separately.
Feb 14, 2024 · Amardeep Singh vs Harveen Kaur Judgment. The Supreme Court of India in Amardeep Singh vs Harveen Kaur delved into the interpretation of Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, particularly focusing on the role and nature of the six-month cooling-off period delineated in Section 13B(2).
May 12, 2020 · Title of the case: Amardeep Singh v, Harveen Kaur on 12 September, 2017. Citation: Civil Appeal NO. 11158 OF 2017 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil)No. 20184 of 2017) Court: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA. Bench: Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel. Parties: Appellant: Amardeep Singh. Respondent: Harveen Kaur Brief Facts:
The Act enabled the court to dissolve marriage on statutory grounds. In determining the question whether provision is mandatory or directory, language alone is not always decisive. The Court has to have the regard to the context, the subject matter and the object of the provision.
Amardeep Singh vs Harveen Kaur on 12 September, 2017. 1. The question which arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the minimum period of six months stipulated under Section 13B (2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (the Act) for a motion for passing decree of divorce on the basis of mutual consent is mandatory or can be relaxed in ...
This Court held that marriage had irretrievably broken down and though the civil courts and the High Court could not exercise power contrary to the statutory provisions, this Court under Article 142 could exercise such power in the interests of justice. Accordingly the decree for divorce was granted. 8 Priyanka Singh v.
Amardeep Singh Vs Harveen Kaur, AIR 2017 SC 4417 Facts. The Appellant (Amardeep Singh) married the Respondent on January 16, 2001. (Harveen Kaur). Two children were born out of wedlock in 1995 and 2003, respectively. As a result of their disagreements, the couple has been living separately since 2008.
Under the traditional Hindu Law, as it stood prior to the statutory law on the point, marriage is a sacrament and cannot be dissolved by consent. The Act enabled the court to dissolve marriage on statutory grounds. By way of amendment in the year 1976, the concept of divorce by mutual consent was introduced.
