Major Kavish - Invidious

Major Kavish

Advocate AFT, High Court & Supreme Court | Author
I can be reached at office@majorkavish.com
wa.me/+918708541051
Contact - 8708541051
wa.me/+918708541051

View channel on YouTube

Switch Invidious Instance

Videos

Shorts

Playlists

Posts

Major Kavish

Behind the mic at Red FM 93.5 🎧
Podcast coming soon.

14 hours ago | [YT] | 58

View 0 replies

Major Kavish

The Delhi High Court laid down a significant judgement in a recent series of events upholding the husband’s right to obtain divorce against sustained pattern of mental cruelty by wife.

14 hours ago | [YT] | 20

View 0 replies

Major Kavish

Marriage Restriction for Agniveers Seeking Permanent Army Service
#army #marriage #agniveer

1 day ago | [YT] | 73

View 2 replies

Major Kavish

The Gujarat High Court has set aside a family court order that rejected a divorce by mutual consent solely because the six-month cooling-off period was not waived, reiterating that the period under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 is directory, not mandatory.

The couple married in December 2023 and began living separately within a month due to irreconcilable differences and divergent career plans—the wife chose to continue working in India while the husband moved abroad for studies with plans to settle there. After over a year of separation, they jointly approached the family court for divorce by mutual consent, confirming that the decision was voluntary and that all issues, including alimony, had been settled. The wife also undertook not to seek maintenance in the future.

Despite this, the family court rejected the petition before the cooling-off period ended, noting that no separate waiver application had been filed. Challenging this, the couple argued that the court should have at least allowed them to seek a waiver instead of dismissing the case outright.

Relying on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Amardeep Singh v. Harveen Kaur (2017), the High Court held that where parties have lived apart for the requisite time, reconciliation has failed, and disputes are settled, insisting mechanically on the cooling-off period only prolongs hardship. The Court said the family court should have permitted the defect to be cured rather than rejecting the plea.

Accordingly, the High Court restored the matter to the family court, directed it to consider a waiver application (if filed within two weeks), and decide the case afresh expeditiously, preferably within six months. No costs were imposed.