Mamta Rani v. Bhupesh Verma

also of Delhi High Court in Ms. Priya Versus Sanjay Gaba, 2004(1) All India Hindu Law Reporter 640. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent has, on other hand, raised no objection to the prayer of the petitioner being granted. In the wake of the submissions made by counsel for the parties, statements of the parties, who are present in Court and have been duly identified by their respective counsel, have been recorded and placed on record separately. Both of them deposed on the lines of the averments made in the petition. It was stated by them in clear terms that they have agreed to get their marriage dissolved by a decree of divorce by mutual consent. The respondent-husband has stated that in terms of the settlement arrived at between him and the petitioner-wife, he has already deposited a sum of Rs. 2,25,000/- with the Mediation Centre of this Court, payable to the petitioner on account of permanent alimony. The petitioner-wife in her statement has admitted the correctness of the statement of the respondent-husband made in this Court today. Besides, she has also stated that she would withdraw all criminal litigation pending against her husband and his family members after the bank drafts are released to her and the decree of divorce is passed. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and giving my thoughtful consideration to the issue involved herein, C.R. No. 4292 of 2009 4 in my opinion, the petition deserves to succeed. Section 13-B of the Act reads as under:- “13-B Divorce by mutual consent.-(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act a petition for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce may be presented to the district court by both the parties to a marriage together, whether such marriage was solemnised before or after the commencement of the Marriage Laws (Amendment) Act, 1976 (68 of 1976), on the ground that they have been living separately for a period of one year or more, that they have not been able to live together and that they have mutually agreed that the marriage should be dissolved. (2) On the motion of both the parties made not earlier than six months after the date of the presentation of the petition referred to in sub-section (1) and non later than eighteen months after the said date, if the petition is not withdrawn in the meantime, the court shall, on being satisfied, after hearing the parties and after making such inquiry as it thinks fit, that a marriage has been solemnised and that the averments in the petition are true, pass a decree of divorce declaring the marriage to be dissolved with effect from the date of the decree.” C.R. No. 4292 of 2009 5 Section 13-B was added in the year 1976 by Act No. 68 of 1976. The said provision provides for divorce by mutual consent. The pre-conditions for applicability of the aforesaid provisions as prescribed under sub-section (1) are:- (a) the spouses should have been living separately for a period of one year or more before presentation of petition for divorce by mutual consent; (b) they must not be able to co-habit together; and (c) they have mutually agreed for dissolution of the marriage. Under sub-section (2), it has been provided that where a petition for divorce by mutual consent after presentation has not been withdrawn the court may after six months and before 18 months, from the date of motion of both the parties pass a decree for divorce. The court is required to satisfy after hearing the parties and after making the enquiries that the marriage between the parties had been solemnised and that the averments made in the petition are true and correct. The period of six months as laid down under sub- section (2) is intended to prevent the parties from rushing to the court for divorce and also to give them an opportunity to reconcile. However, it does not restrain the court absolutely from passing a decree of divorce where the court is satisfied that the marriage should be snapped immediately. The provisions of Section 13-B(2) of the Act have apparently been C.R. No. 4292 of 2009 6 made to provide to the couple a final chance to think over the matter once again. The court always hopes that a good sense will prevail upon the adamant spouses and they may withdraw from the petition moved for axing their ties once for all and be re-united. When there is irretrievable break down of nuptial ties, the alarming provisions of waiting for another six months to issue the verdict of divorce should not stand in the way of the two spouses who have been still hoping to see the next door and endeavouring for their rehabilitation. The present case is also on no different footing. Here also, as is apparent from the record, the marriage between the parties was solemnised on 29.7.2007 and as per statements made by both of them, they have been living separately since

11.1.2008 and they have not cohabited thereafter. According to averments in the petition, there is no possibility of reconciliation between the parties. All persuasive ways used by the respectable from the two families and the Mediation Centre of this Court for re-union of the couple have proved to be unsuccessful. The couple has finally decided to say good-bye to the marital bonds in which they were tied more than two years ago. They have settled their disputes as well. The husband has agreed and has even deposited an amount of Rs. 2,25,000/- in the shape of two bank drafts with the Mediation Centre of this Court. On the other side, the wife has also stated before this Court on oath that she would withdraw all criminal litigation C.R. No. 4292 of 2009 7 initiated against her husband and his family members. Over and above all, it is an exceptional case where a good match is available for the petitioner-wife and she would be soon rehabilitated after re-marrying to him. It is further stated that if the petitioner is made to wait till the date fixed by the Additional District Judge, Mohali in proceedings under Section 13-B of the Act, she might lose the good match and the chance of her rehabilitation. The courts are always for mitigating the hardship wherever it is legally permissible. In all the judgments cited by learned counsel for the petitioner, it has been contemporaneously observed that keeping in view the exceptional facts and circumstances prevailing in those cases, the period of six months can be waived. In the facts and circumstances noticed above, the prayer of the petitioner is accepted. The period of six months as envisaged under Section 13-B(2) of the Act is waived. Accordingly, the hearing in the petition under Section 13-B of the Act pending before the Additional District Judge, Mohali is pre-poned from 5.10.2009 to 31.8.2009. The parties are directed to appear before the said court on that day and a direction is issued to the Additional District Judge, Mohali to take up the said petition on 31.8.2009 and proceed to dispose of the same in accordance with law. It is hoped that owing to the facts and exceptional circumstances of the present case, as far as C.R. No. 4292 of 2009 8 possible, the hearing in the said petition shall not be further postponed. The revision petition is disposed of accordingly. August 24, 2009 *RKMALIK (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE