IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI MONDAY, THE 17TH MAY 2010 / 27TH VAISAKHA 1932 WP(C).No. 13696 of 2010(R) -------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN IA.62/2010 IN OP.29/2010 of FAMILY COURT,KOZHIKODE .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- NEENA.A.K. AGED 20 YERS, D/O.ABDUL SALAM, ANDROM KANDY, NANMINDA-13, BALUSSERY, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SUNIL V.MOHAMMED RESPONDENT(S): --------------- SHINOS KUMAR, AGED 25 YEARS, S/O. KUMARAN, THEKKEYIL TAZHE HOUSE, KIZHUR.P.O. KOYILANDY TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. * * * * * * * * * * * * * W.P.(C) No.13696 of 2010 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of May 2010 J U D G M E N T Basant,J The petitioner and the respondent are spouses and they applied for divorce by mutual consent under Section 28 of the Special Marriage Act. They further pray that the period of six months stipulated under Section 28(2) of the Special Marriage Act may be dispensed with. The court below, by the impugned order, rejected the said claim. The petitioner claims to be aggrieved by the impugned order. 2. We find no merit in the grievance. In the light of the decision in Saumya Ann Thomas v. Union of India [2010(1) KLT 869] which concludes the controversy in this aspect, the petitioner and the respondent cannot claim the relief of waiving the mandatory period of waiting under Section 28(2) of the Special Marriage Act. The impugned order does not, in these circumstances, warrant interference. 3. This writ petition is, in these circumstances, dismissed. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE) jsr // True Copy// PA to Judge W.P.(Crl).No. : 2 : W.P.(Crl).No. : 3 : W.P.(Crl).No. : 4 : R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. .No. of 200 ORDER/JUDGMENT 29/07/2009