Writ Petition (Civil) No. 86 of 2010. Case: Smt. Poonam Vs Sumit Tanwar. Supreme Court (India)
| Case Number | Writ Petition (Civil) No. 86 of 2010 |
| Judges | B.S. Chauhan and Aftab Alam, JJ. |
| Issue | Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Section 13B(1) and 13B(2); Supreme Court Rules, 1966; Constitution of India - Articles 12, 32, 136, 142 and 226 |
| Citation | AIR 2010 SC 1384 , 2010 (3) AWC 2213 (SC) , JT 2010 (3) SC 223 , 2010 (1) OLR 749 (SC) , RLW 2010 (2) 1167 SC , 2010 (2) SCALE 266 , (2010) 4 SCC 460 |
| Judgement Date | Monday March 22, 2010 |
| Court | Supreme Court (India) |
Order:
B.S. Chauhan, J.
-
This Writ Petition has been filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India for awarding the decree of divorce, annulling the marriage of the parties herein; and/or issue directions waiving the statutory period of six months provided under Section 13B(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as, "The Act, 1955").
-
The facts and circumstances giving rise to the present case are that the petitioner and the respondent got married on 30.11.2008 according to Hindu rites in Delhi. They separated just after two days of their marriage i.e. on 02.12.2008. A petition for dissolution of marriage by consent being HMA No. 197/09 dated 09.09.2009 was filed under Section 13B(1) of The Act, 1955. The Family Court of Delhi, vide order dated 25.11.2009 accepted the said HMA No. 197/2009 (titled as Poonam v. Sumit Tanwar) observing as under:
-
In view of Section 13B(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, the marriage between the parties cannot be dissolved straightaway in the present case. As per the statutory requirement, parties are advised to make further efforts for reconciliation in order to save their marriage. In case they are unable to do so, the parties may come up with the petition of second motion under Section 13B(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act as per law. The present petition under Section 13B(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act is hereby allowed and stands disposed of....
-
Being aggrieved by the order of the Family Court, the present Writ Petition has been filed. The matter came up for preliminary hearing on 19.03.2010. Mr. A., an proxy counsel, was not able to explain as under what circumstances, a Writ Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution is maintainable for such a relief and as to whether the Court has the power to issue a writ to the Court/Tribunal to violate a mandatory statutory provision. The learned Counsel was also not able to explain under what circumstances a writ petition lies; who is amenable to writ jurisdiction; and which are the necessary parties in a writ petition? The matter was passed over and the proxy counsel was asked to come along with Mr. B., Advocate-on-Record, who had signed and filed the petition. In the second round when the matter was taken up, another proxy counsel appeared and introduced himself as brother of Mr. B., Advocate-on-Record. The second proxy counsel also expressed his inability to render any assistance to the Court on any legal issue. Being faced with an inordinate and unfortunate situation that the matter had been filed in the Apex Court of the Country and the appearing counsel was not able to render any assistance, the matter was adjourned for Monday i.e. for 22.03.2010 and the learned Advocate-on-Record Mr. B. was requested to appear in the Court.
-
Mr. B. learned Advocate-on-Record appeared in Court today and could not furnish any explanation whatsoever to defend the petition, nor he could explain how this petition is maintainable. However, he tendered absolute and unconditional apology and assured that he will not lend his name merely for filing the petition by other counsel in future.
-
This very Bench decided a Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 2954/2010 (Manish Goel v. Rohini Goel) vide Judgment and Order dated 05.02.2010 observing that this Court, in exercise of its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, generally should not issue any direction to waive the statutory requirement. The Courts are meant to enforce the law and therefore, are not expected to issue a...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeUnlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Start Your 7-day Trial
-
MAT.APP.(F.C.)--113/2016. Case: SANGEETA Vs. ARUN JOON. High Court of Delhi (India)
...taken note of the earlier decisions in the case of Goel vs. Rohini Goel, reported as (2010) 4 SCC 393 , Poonam vs. Tanwar, reported as (2010) 4 SCC 460 , and Anil Kumar Jain (supra) had expressed an opinion that in the light of the observations made said cases, it would be appropriate to re......
-
O.S.A. Nos. 122, 123, 148 and 149 of 2011. Case: V.N. Subramaniam Vs Tamil Nadu Advocate's Associationrepresented by its Secretary M. Baskar and Ors.. High Court of Madras (India)
...can issue directions against the statutory provisions. Placing reliance upon the decision of Supreme Court in Poonam v. Sumittanwar (2010) 4 SCC 460, the learned Senior Counsel would further contend that Court should not issue any direction to waive the statutory requirement and Court canno......
-
Misc. Single No. 2705 of 2011. Case: Lala Mangat Ram Mahavidyalaya Vs State of U.P. through its Principal Secy. Higher Edu.. High Court of Allahabad (India)
...with the correct position of law whether for or against either party. Recently, in the case of Poonam v. Sumit Tanwar 2010 SCW 2048: AIR 2010 SC 1384 the Apex Court has held that in absence of proper assistance to Court by the lawyer, the Court may decline to entertain For the reasons afore......
-
Civil Appeal Nos. 3276-3278 of 2013, W.P. (C) Nos. 72, 91, 140 of 2012 and S.L.P. (C) Nos. 18070-18072 of 2015 (CC 8089-8091/2012). Case: Riju Prasad Sarma and Ors. Vs State of Assam and Ors.. Supreme Court (India)
...Ors. v. State of Maharashtra And Anr. (1966) 3 SCR 744 (iii) Triveniben v. State of Gujarat (1989) 1 SCC 678 (iv) Poonam v. Sumit Tanwar (2010) 4 SCC 460 61. Hence, in accordance with such judgments holding that judgments of High Court and Supreme Court cannot be subjected to writ jurisdict......
-
MAT.APP.(F.C.)--113/2016. Case: SANGEETA Vs. ARUN JOON. High Court of Delhi (India)
...taken note of the earlier decisions in the case of Goel vs. Rohini Goel, reported as (2010) 4 SCC 393 , Poonam vs. Tanwar, reported as (2010) 4 SCC 460 , and Anil Kumar Jain (supra) had expressed an opinion that in the light of the observations made said cases, it would be appropriate to re......
-
O.S.A. Nos. 122, 123, 148 and 149 of 2011. Case: V.N. Subramaniam Vs Tamil Nadu Advocate's Associationrepresented by its Secretary M. Baskar and Ors.. High Court of Madras (India)
...can issue directions against the statutory provisions. Placing reliance upon the decision of Supreme Court in Poonam v. Sumittanwar (2010) 4 SCC 460, the learned Senior Counsel would further contend that Court should not issue any direction to waive the statutory requirement and Court canno......
-
Misc. Single No. 2705 of 2011. Case: Lala Mangat Ram Mahavidyalaya Vs State of U.P. through its Principal Secy. Higher Edu.. High Court of Allahabad (India)
...with the correct position of law whether for or against either party. Recently, in the case of Poonam v. Sumit Tanwar 2010 SCW 2048: AIR 2010 SC 1384 the Apex Court has held that in absence of proper assistance to Court by the lawyer, the Court may decline to entertain For the reasons afore......
-
Civil Appeal Nos. 3276-3278 of 2013, W.P. (C) Nos. 72, 91, 140 of 2012 and S.L.P. (C) Nos. 18070-18072 of 2015 (CC 8089-8091/2012). Case: Riju Prasad Sarma and Ors. Vs State of Assam and Ors.. Supreme Court (India)
...Ors. v. State of Maharashtra And Anr. (1966) 3 SCR 744 (iii) Triveniben v. State of Gujarat (1989) 1 SCC 678 (iv) Poonam v. Sumit Tanwar (2010) 4 SCC 460 61. Hence, in accordance with such judgments holding that judgments of High Court and Supreme Court cannot be subjected to writ jurisdict......