The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of satisfying the court that the averments in the petition are true and the need for an inquiry to ensure the voluntariness of the consent expressed by the parties in cases of divorce by mutual consent.

VENKATACHALIAH, J.

( 1 ) THIS appeal arising out of a. Matrimonal Cause, is by the husband, who along with the Respondent-wife had filed a joint-petition for divorce by mutual consent under Section 13 (B) of the Hindu marriage Act, 1955 ('act' for short) and is directed against the order dated 6-2- 1985 made in M. C. No. 15 of 1984, on the file of the Civil Judge, Udupi, rejecting the petition. The wife is arrayed as respondent; but there is no contest in this appeal.

( 2 ) IN their petition the parties averred that their marriage was solemnised on 11-3-1979 in accordance with the Hindu Shastraic rights at Sri. Janardhana Devaru Temple at Pangala ; that they lived as man and wife at the appellant's house at Krishnarajanagar in mysore District till 17-9-1979 : that they have no issues by the marriage; that there-after they were not able to live together ; and that respondent has since been staying-away with her parents at mallur village of Udupi Taluk. It was urther averred that the parties had mutually agreed upon the dissolution of their marriage and that both of them had voluntarily consented to the dissolution. After lapse of the Statutory period of six months the matter came up before the court-below on 5-2-1985. The Court made efforts to bring about a reconciliation ; but no reconciliation was possible. Both the parties deposed before the court in support of their prayer for dissolution of the marriage by mutual consent and reiterated the averments in the petition.

( 3 ) LEARNED Civil Judge, however, entertained doubts about the permissibility of grant of relief in the case. On a consideration of the matter the Court- below declined relief. The reasoning in support of this conclusion had better be stated in its own words :"in the instant case, if the petition and the evidence of P. Ws. 1 and 2 are considered in the light of the above provisions, it is apparent that except the oral testimony of the parties and the allegation in the petition, there is no material to corroborate their case that the marriage has been solemnized, and that the averments in the petition are true. The say of both the petitioners as P. Ws. 1 and 2 shows that they have not been able to live together In that regard they have not made out a clear case. The reason behind the incomaptibility between them is neither alleged nor proved. The evidence of the close relatives of the parties is essential to comply the requirement of Sec. 13 (B) (2) of the hindu MARRIAGE ACT, 1955 1976. The parties have not chosen to do so. No reason is forthcoming for this omission. Merely because the petition is not withdrawn by the parties, and on the mere say of the parties that the petition is filed with mutual consent, it is not sufficient to grant decree of divorce. Even though Sec. 13-B of the Hindu marriage Act is introduced to facilitate the married couple to get the divorce by consent, it calls upon the parties to satisfy the court that the marriage has been solemnized as alleged and that the averments in the petition are true. The averments in the petition in this case is too vague as already discussed. There is no reason why the petitioners who stayed for 6 months together have not been able to together thereafter. Under these circumes, it is not a fit case to grant decree vorce. . . . . . . . . "

( 4 ) WE have heard Sri K. S. Vyasa rao, learned Counsel for the appellanthasband and Sri G G. Sastri, learned counsel for the respondent-wife. The parties were also present in Court. We made efforts, with the assistance of the learned Counsel, to ascertain what was ailing their marriage and whether this marriage could not, after all, be saved. No reconciliation was possible. The information that we gathered, some aspects of which may not be necessary to be set-out in the interests of the parties themselves, disclosed what is, perhaps an irredeemable situation. We questioned the parties closely with a view to ascertaining whether they were, or any one of them was, acting

Click Here to Read the rest of this document