Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2. When the matter came up for hearing before this Court, many efforts were made to see that there was reconciliation between the petitioner and the opponent so that they may reside happily along with their two children, a son and a daughter respectively begotten by the wedlock, but it appeared that it was not possible for the petitioner and the opponent to reside together. The petitioner has filed an application before this Court for amendment of the original petition and for permitting to pray for divorce by mutual consent. The opponent has also agreed to the said amendment. The said amendment has been granted by this Court on 18-3-1987. The original petition for restitution of conjugal rights is therefore, now to be treated as a joint application for divorce by mutual consent. The parties have also given a joint Purshis that the original petition filed in the trial court, which is permitted to be amended. may now be treated as a joint application for divorce by mutual consent under S.13B of the Hindu Marriage Act and the said Purshis has also been kept on record.

Sub-section (2). of S. 13B says that the Court should wait for six months before passing the decree for divorce. In the present case, the original petition for restitution of conjugal rights under S. 9 was filed by the present appellant sometime in the year 1984 and the said petition was dismissed by the trial Court on 28-3-1985 against which the present appeal has been filed. Before this Court, the application has been amended with the permission of the court and the application is now treated as an application under S. 13B for divorce by mutual consent. In a case before the Allahabad High Court reported in Indrawal v. Radhey Raman, AIR 1981 All 151 a petition for divorce was filed by one of the parties and a decree for divorce was passed by the trial court. In appeal the parties entered into a compromise and prayed that the decree for divorce may be granted under S. 13B of the Act. That request was granted by the appellate Court. In the present case also the amendment is sought for before this court to treat the petition for restitution of conjugal rights as a petition for divorce by mutual consent and that has been granted by this Court. Decree for divorce by mutual consent can, therefore, be passed under S. 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act.

7. Sub-section (2) of S. 13B, of course, provides that decree for divorce has to be passed after the expiry of, six months from the date of presentation of the petition for divorce by mutual consent. The amendment is granted by this Court on 19-3-1987 and six months have still not elapsed from the date of the said amendment. But at the same time, the original petition was filed on 9-3-84 and more than two years have elapsed since then. The amendment may relate back to the date of the presentation of the original petition and, therefore4 also it can be said that six months have elapsed and, therefore, there cannot be, any objection in passing a decree for divorce. It is again a well settled proposition of law that a statutory provision, though in a. mandatory form, can yet be treated as directory in nature and there are weighty reasons warranting the reading of S.13B, Clause (2) as directory. The Legislature has by enacting S. 13B of the Act liberalized the tendency of providing relief to parties on the basis of their mutual consent from their broken marriages. This relief is granted by bringing about a profound alteration in the concept of a Hindu marriage from that of a sacrament to a contract. By that alteration, law has definitely set its face against forcible perpetuation of the status of matrimony between unwilling parties. The provision of the period of six months fixed by S. 13B is not a rule relating to the jurisdiction of the Courts to entertain a petition filed for divorce by consent. The question of jurisdiction is dealt with by S. 13B which must be strictly complied with, while S. 13B is a part of mere procedure. It must, therefore, be interpreted as a handmaid of justice in order to advance and further the interests of justice and not as a technical rule. It is pertinent to note that S. 13B provides that decree has to be passed not earlier than six months and not later than 18 months from the date of presentation of the petition. If we take it that the provision contained in S. 13B is mandatory, then in a given case a Court may not be able to pass a decree for divorce by mutual consent if the period of 18 months has expired for some reasons beyond the control of the In view of this, I am inclined to say that the provision contained in S. 13B is directory and not mandatory. At any rate, this provision cannot come in the way of an appellate Court in passing a decree for divorce by mutual consent in a given case even before the expiry of six months from the date of the presentation of the petition. When a court finds that it is not possible to arrive at a reconciliation between the parties and the parties are living apart long and their wedlock has virtually become a deadlock, it would be futile to wait for a period of six months. Chances of reunion have completely faded away in the present case, and therefore, I think that a decree for divorce by mutual consent should be passed, immediately. I am fortified in this view of mine by a Division Bench judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court reported in K. Omprakash v. K. Nalini, AIR 1986 Andh Pra 167. 1 may at the same time add here a word of caution that simply because the provision of S. 13B can be said to be directory, it does not necessarily follow that in all cases the Court should pass a decree for divorce even before the expiry of six months. It will depend upon the facts of each case whether decree should be passed before the expiry of six months 'or the Court should wait for a period of six months or more. The Court will have to exercise its discretion judicially in considering whether decree for divorce by mutual consent should be passed in a particular case even before the, expiry of the. Period of six months.

8. As result of the aforesaid discussion, the appeal is allowed, the order of the trial Court dismissing the application for restitution of conjugal rights is hereby set aside because that application does not survive in view of the amendment granted by this Court. The application for divorce by mutual consent is granted and decree for divorce by mutual consent is granted. Decree for divorce declaring the marriage between the parties as dissolved with immediate effect is ordered to be passed. The parties to bear their own costs throughout.