APARNA AJINKYA FIRODIA VS AJINKYA ARUN FIRODIA 2023/INSC/ 146
- In the marital discord between Aparna Ajinkya Firodiya (referred to as "the wife") and Ajinkya Arun Firodia ("the husband"), the husband has initiated legal proceedings, alleging the wife's infidelity and casting doubt on the paternity of their second son, Arjun. He is pressing for a court-mandated DNA test to ascertain Arjun's biological lineage.
- Opposing the husband's request, the wife contends that such a test is unnecessary and could inflict emotional harm on their son. She maintains that the presumption of paternity, which typically favors the husband unless rebutted by substantial evidence, should remain intact. Furthermore, she argues that the husband's allegations lack substantial proof and thus do not warrant the intrusive measure of a DNA test.
- Highlighting the potential psychological ramifications for their son, the wife stresses the importance of prioritizing their son's well-being throughout the legal proceedings. She urges the court to exercise discretion and consider the child's best interests in resolving the dispute.
- The key questions framed for consideration were:
- The scope and ambit of powers under Article 142 to do “complete justice”.
- Whether under Article 142, the Court can grant mutual consent divorce decree without Section 13B waiting period based on settlement between parties and dispose other connected proceedings.
- Whether divorce can be granted under Article 142 on ground of irretrievable breakdown despite opposition by one party.
Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA) outlines the procedure for divorce by mutual consent, mandating a cooling-off period of 6-18 months subsequent to the joint application for divorce.
- The Supreme Court ruled that:
- The Supreme Court (SC), invoking its authority under Article 142, is not bound by the procedural prerequisites stipulated in Section 13B and can expedite the granting of a decree even during the pendency of the main case before a Family Court.
- Furthermore, the SC possesses the discretion to grant divorce on the grounds of irretrievable breakdown in the interest of justice, irrespective of one party's opposition.
- The Bench recognizes the cooling-off period as potentially restrictive in cases of inevitable divorce due to irretrievable breakdown of marriage, yet underscores its necessity in facilitating parties to reassess their decision to divorce.
- Waiver of the cooling-off period is permissible only upon the Court's determination that the marriage is irreparably damaged.
- Factors informing the assessment of irretrievable breakdown include:
- Duration of cohabitation post-marriage.
- Last cohabitation instance between parties.
- Nature of allegations exchanged by parties.
- Efforts towards dispute resolution.
- Significant duration of separation.
-->
