Judicial Separation in Hindu Law serves as a legal mechanism aimed at granting couples experiencing marital difficulties an opportunity for introspection. It enables both spouses to reassess their union while residing separately, affording them the liberty and room to contemplate their future. This legal recourse signifies their ultimate avenue towards formal separation.
Section 10 of Hindu Marriage act 1955 provides for the provision of Judicial Separation, it runs as “(1) Either party to a marriage, whether solemnised before or after the commencement of this Act, may present a petition praying for a decree for judicial separation on any of the grounds specified in sub-section (1) of section 13, and in the case of a wife also on any of the grounds specified in sub-section (2) thereof, as grounds on which a petition for divorce might have been presented.]
(2) Where a decree for judicial separation has been passed, it shall no longer be obligatory for the petitioner to cohabit with the respondent, but the court may, on the application by petition of either party and on being satisfied of the truth of the statements made in such petition, rescind the decree if it considers it just and reasonable to do so.”
- Petition for Judicial Separation can be filed either by the Husband or wife as per the jurisdiction of the court to which it is situated.
- Decree of judicial separation shall be prayed as per the grounds provided under section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
Let us understand the consequences of Judicial Separation
Following a judicial separation agreement, spouses are no longer required to live together, though their legal marital status remains unchanged. Section 376B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, grants legal protection to a separated wife, stipulating that if the husband engages in non-consensual sexual intercourse with her post-decree, he can face punishment ranging from two to seven years. Remarriage during separation is prohibited, deemed bigamy as per Narasimha Reddy v. Basamma (1975). Property rights remain intact for both spouses after separation, affirmed in Krishna Bhattacharjee v. Sarathi Choudhary (2015), where the Supreme Court upheld the wife’s entitlement to ‘stridhan’ as exclusive property.
It happens sometimes that the court may issue a one-year decree of judicial separation, allowing spouses to deliberate on whether to pursue reconciliation or divorce. This timeframe offers them an opportunity to review on their marriage and explore possibilities for reconciliation.
Are judicial separation and divorce synonymous?
Judicial separation and divorce serve as legal remedies for individuals facing marital discord, provided by legislative frameworks. Both avenues facilitate the dissolution of marital responsibilities and privileges within a union. However, they diverge significantly in their outcomes and implications. Unlike divorce, which terminates the entirety of the marital bond, judicial separation represents a more moderate option. It entails the separation of spouses, requiring them to live apart, yet upholds their status as married individuals. This means that while physical cohabitation ceases, the formal marital tie persists. Notably, the decree of judicial separation can be reversed if the couple chooses to reunite and resume their marital obligations and rights. This distinction positions judicial separation as a reversible measure, contrasting with the irreversible nature of divorce. Consequently, it offers couples a chance to reassess their relationship without permanently severing marital ties. The case of Amit Singh v. Sandhya Singh (2019) underscored these differences, emphasizing the unique characteristics of both judicial separation and divorce as matrimonial remedies.
What’s the reason that judicial separation is better than divorce.
Judicial separation, as contrasted with divorce, is often regarded as a preferable option due to its potential for facilitating reconciliation within the marriage. Unlike divorce, which represents a permanent severance of marital ties, judicial separation maintains the marital bond while allowing spouses to live apart. This arrangement grants both parties a period of reflection to assess their relationship and make decisions about their future, whether that involves pursuing divorce or reconciliation. In instances where marital discord arises from minor issues, divorce may seem like an extreme solution. Judicial separation offers an alternative form of relief, providing a temporary suspension of cohabitation obligations to the aggrieved party.
English law distinguishes between absolute divorce (vinculo matrimonii) and limited divorce (a mensa et thoro), with judicial separation falling into the latter category. It serves as a prelude to divorce, allowing couples to address their marital conflicts before making a final decision. Furthermore, the interim period afforded by judicial separation permits individuals to seek guidance from friends and family and evaluate their choices.
The case of Mozelle Robin Solomon v. Lt. Col. R.J. Solomon (1968) emphasized this disparity between divorce and judicial separation. While a divorce decree terminates the marriage entirely, a decree for judicial separation merely results in legal separation without ending the marital bond, allowing for potential reconciliation in the future.
Procedure for applying for judicial separation
A petition for judicial separation may be initiated by either spouse, husband or wife, based on grounds specified in the relevant acts. As per Section 19 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, such a petition must be filed in the district court within the jurisdiction:
Where the marriage took place, Where the respondent currently resides, Where the spouses last lived together, or Where the petitioner currently resides.
Section 20 of the Hindu Marriage Act mandates that the petition must outline the factual basis for the claim of judicial separation and assert the absence of collusion between the parties. Section 21 stipulates that proceedings under this Act adhere to the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
In accordance with Order VII Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, a plaint for judicial separation must include details such as the petitioner’s and respondent’s names, residences, grounds for separation, relief sought, and marriage date.
Upon filing, the court serves notice to the respondent and hears arguments from both parties. The court evaluates the validity of the grounds for separation and grants a decree if satisfied. The trial should ideally conclude within six months.
Once judicially separated, parties may seek divorce under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, allowing for ‘divorce by mutual consent’ after living apart for one year or more. This process involves a six-month ‘cooling period’ after the initial petition, designed for reflection, though not mandatory if already judicially separated. The divorce petition cannot be filed within one year of marriage solemnization, mirroring the judicial separation process.
You may contact me for consultation or advice by visiting Contact Us and Call us