Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan: Hon’ble Supreme Court of India held that it can exercise power under Article 142(1) to grant a decree of divorce by mutual consent and can bypass the provisions of section 13B of The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Hon’ble Supreme Court of India also recognised its discretionary power to dissolve a marriage on the grounds of irretrievable breakdown, which is otherwise not provided under section 13 of The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
Devinder Singh Narula v. Meenakshi Nangia The Supreme Court of India exercised its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India and ruled in August 2012 that marriages can be ended by mutual consent before expiry of the cooling period of six months stipulated in the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act provides for the couple seeking divorce through mutual consent to wait for a period of six months after making first joint application for divorce. It is only after the expiry of the six months that the couple can move second application for the dissolution of their marriage. Pronouncing the judgment, Justice Altamas Kabir said: "It is no doubt true that the legislature had in its wisdom stipulated a cooling period of six months from the date of filing of a petition for mutual divorce till such divorce is actually granted, with the intention that it would save the institution of marriage. But there may be occasions when in order to do complete justice to the parties it becomes necessary for this court to invoke its powers under Article 142 in an irreconcilable situation (between the couple). When it has not been possible for the parties to live together and to discharge their marital obligations towards each other for more than one year, we see no reason to continue the agony of the parties for another two months."
Arun Kumar v. Inspector General of Registration A case before the
Madras High Court opinioned same-sex marriage within historical Hinduism, that homosexual acts are not forbidden under the Act, and that marriage is a fundamental constitutional right. If literally interpreted, the terms "groom" and "bride" may be viewed as referring to narrow definitions based on genders ("male" and "female"). However, the Hindu Marriage Act was a codification of the ancient Shastrik law by the colonial government for the purpose of regulating issues such as divorce. Application of the "mischief rule" in this situation allows homosexual marriage to be allowed under the current reading of the Hindu Marriage Act, as what "the statute aims at relieving is the regulation of marriage, and not that two same-sex individuals could marry each other. The Act is a codifying statute, and not a penal or disabling statute" and that it was improperly codified. Nibedita Dutta and Pooja Srivastava, a Hindu lesbian couple who got married in
Varanasi,
Uttar Pradesh. Sameer Samudra and Amit Gokhale, a Hindu gay couple who got married in
Columbus,
United States. The petition requested the
Supreme Court to recognise the
marriage between any two persons, regardless of
gender identity and
sexual orientation, by enforcing the
fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles
14,
15,
19,
21 and
25 of the
Indian Constitution. ==See also==