'Deed of Divorce' not valid, but mutual divorce can sustain:HC

Observing that divorce cannot be sought by spouses through a deed, the Bombay High Court has set aside a family court order which rejected a petition filed by a couple seeking divorce by mutual consent by waiving the 6-month mandatory waiting period for granting such relief.
The couple, Mittal and Manoj Panchal, got married in April 2007 in Mumbai as per Hindu rites but within a year disputes arose between them due to incompatibility, inequality and differences in their thoughts.
They decided to get separated and mutually decided to execute a 'deed of divorce' in June 2011. At that time, they were not aware that such a divorce was not recognised in law. Both got re-married and the wife applied for a USA visa as her second husband was settled there.

However, she could not get visa as the US Embassy demanded a divorce decree from the court. She then sought help of her first husband who cooperated and both applied to the family court under section 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act to get a divorce by mutual consent by waiving off the mandatory six-month waiting period.
The family court rejected their petition following which she approached the Bombay High Court.
A bench of High Court headed by Justice V K Tahilramani recently ruled, "We are of the opinion that the impugned order (of the family court) is not sustainable, both on facts and in law."

The family court primarily rejected the petition on the premises that the marriage between the appellants was already dissolved by the Deed of Divorce dated June 13, 2011, as per the custom and usage prevailing in the caste and community and, therefore, the petition filed under section 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act is not maintainable.

The family court also held that the deed of divorce, being an agreement between the appellants, cannot be set aside except on the ground that it was executed under force or pressure or by fraud by the parties to the agreement.
The High Court held that the reasons given by the family court in rejecting the petition were not legally sustainable.

The bench said the decree of divorce should have been passed because the marriage had been solemnised and later the parties had separated and mutually agreed to a divorce.