Key Points: - The Court held that there must be mutual consent on both occasions: when filing the petition and at the time of enquiry/final decree under Section 13b(2) (motion of both the parties) (!) (!) (!) - An ex parte decree cannot be regarded as a decree by mutual consent and proceeding must be fair and not conducted for the convenience of one party; improper pre-poning and ex-parte decree are abuses of judicial process (!) (!) - The Family Court’s substituted service without proper satisfaction that the husband was evading service was improper; service must be normal unless there is satisfaction of evasion (!) (!) - The petition for mutual divorce cannot be deemed to have continuing consent solely based on absence on certain dates; consent must be demonstrated by tangible materials and mutuality must exist at the time of decree (!) (!) - The Supreme Court overruled conflicting Bombay/Delhi/Madhya Pradesh High Court views and reaffirmed Sureshta Devi on requirement of continued mutual consent for decree under Section 13b (!) (!) (!) - The Court directed further steps to ascertain consent on a date, and if both parties consent, decree under Section 13b may be passed; if not, case to be disposed according to observations (!) (!) (!) - The purpose of Family Courts Act emphasizes human approach and settlement prior to trial; inappropriate ex parte actions undermine statutory obligations (!) (!) (!)

What is the requirement of mutual consent under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act for a decree of divorce by mutual consent?

What constitutes valid service and procedural fairness in a divorce petition under Section 13B and whether ex parte decrees can be validly issued?

What is the Court’s position on continuing mutual consent and the impact of absence of one party on the final decree under Section 13B?