B. SUBHASHAN REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THIS revision is directed against the Order dated 4-8-1999 passed by the Family Court, Hyderabad in I. A. (SR) No. 2876 of 1999 in O. P. No. 433 of 1999.

( 2 ) THE matter arises under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The marriage between the parties was solemnized on 7-6-1993 according to Hindu rites. But, strain developed in the relationship in the year 1995 and they have been living separately since then and finding that the marriage is incompatible, they had invoked S. 13-B (2) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking divorce by mutual consent and filed a petition to that effect in the Family Court, Hyderabad on 5-7-1999. They have filed an application seeking dispensing with the mandatory six months time wait on the ground that after dissolving the marriage, both the parties want to engage themselves in future activities by going to foreign countries. But, the said plea of dispensing with the mandatory period of six months was negatived by the Court below basing on the Division Bench Judgment of this Court in Re : Jakkula Venkata Ramana Murthy, (1992) 3 ALT 381.

( 3 ) MR. K. S. Murthy, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, cited the decisions of this Court in K. Omprakash v. K. Nalini, AIR 1986 Andh Pra 167 and Re, G. V. Chitti Abbai and G. Padma Lakshmi, (1998) 5 ALT 618 : (AIR 1999 Andh Pra 91), as also the judgment of the Karnataka High Court in Smt. Roopa Reddy v. Prabhakar Reddy, AIR 1994 Kant 12. Insofar as the judgment rendered by a learned single Judge of this Court in Re : G. V. Chitti Abbai s case (supra) is concerned, no judgment of this Court was cited before the learned single Judge. In fact, there is yet another judgment of another learned single Judge in Re : M. Sailaja, AIR 1995 Andh Pra 325, in which both the Division Bench judgments in K. Omprakash s case (AIR 1986 Andh Pra 167) (supra) and Jakkula Venkata Ramana Murthy s case (1992 (3) ALT 381) (supra) have been considered and the learned single Judge has followed the latter Division Bench judgment in Jakkula Venkata Ramana Murthy s case (supra) holding that the 6 months wait period contemplated under Section 13-B (2) of the Hindu Marriage Act cannot be waived or relaxed. Before the learned single Judge in Re : G. V. Chitti Abbai s case (AIR 1999 Andh Pra 91) (supra) only one judgment was cited i. e. of Delhi High Court in Arvind Sharma v. Dhara Sharma, 1998 (1) CCC 22, in which, again the judgments in K. Omprakash s case (AIR 1986 Andh Pra 167) (supra); Smt. Roopa Reddy s case (AIR 1994 Kant 12) (supra) and Dhanjit Vadra v. Smt. Beena Vadra, AIR 1990 Delhi 146, were cited, but not the latter judgments i. e. Division Bench judgment of this Court in Jakkula Venkata Ramana Murthy s case (1992 (3) ALT 381) (supra), which was again followed by a learned single Judge in Sailaja s case (AIR 1995 Andh Pra 325) (supra ).

( 4 ) IN K. Omprakash s case (AIR 1986 Andh Pra 167) (supra), the facts are different than the instant case. In fact, the Division Bench was considering an appeal against rejection of the plea of divorce and during the pendency of the appeal, application was filed under Order VI, Rule 17, C. P. C. to convert the petition for divorce to one under the consent divorce under Sec. 13-B of the Act and what was available for the Division Bench was the point for consideration as to whether 6 months wait is necessary in the appellate Court after spending all that time in the litigation, which was more than 6 months and as the marriage had irretrievably broken down. The facts of the said case did not warrant any adjudication with regard to the power of the trial Court to relax the 6 months wait period and as to whether the said period of 6 months was directory or mandatory. That was correctly pointed out by the latter Division Bench judgment in Jakkula Venkata Ramana Murthy s case (1992 (3) ALT 381) (supra ). The facts situation in Jakkula Venkata Ramana Murthy s case (supra) necessitated the adjudication with regard to the powe

Click Here to Read the rest of this document