JAGANNATHA SHETTY, J.

( 1 ) THIS Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioners against the order passed in M. C. No. 23 of 1989, dated 18-6-1990 by the Civil Judge, gadag, praying therein to set aside the impugned order and to grant a decree of divorce declaring the marriage to be dissolved under sub-section (2) of Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 ('act' for short ).

( 2 ) BRIEFLY stated facts are that the petitioners were married according to Hindu rites on 18-12-1988 at Hole Alur in Ron taluk. After the marriage, they lived together for a period of one week in the first petitioners house. But the second petitioner did not allow the 1st petitioner her husband to have any matrimonial connection with her. They started living separately from each other after about three weeks of their marriage. They have not been able to live together and the marriage between them was completely broken and there was no possibility of reconciliation and, therefore, they filed a petition under section 13 (B) (1) of the Act, for a decree of divorce by mutual consent on 25-10-1989.

( 3 ) IN the petition it is stated that after the marriage the petitioners lived together hardly for one week and there was no matrimonial connection. The 2nd petitioner thereafter left the 1st petitioner and went to her parents house. Eversince then both the petitioners are living separately. It is averred in the petition that they have lost interest in each other and their relationship was strained. It is also averred that it is impossible for them to continue as husband and wife. It appears that there was some attempt by the elders of the family of both parties to bring about conciliation between them. But they were not agreeable to live together.

( 4 ) THAT on 1-6-1990 and 12-6-1990 the Court recorded the statements of the petitioners, wherein both the petitioners have reiterated the position stated in the joint application and further requested to grant a decree of divorce to dissolve the marriage as having been living separately for more than a period of one year, that they have not been able to live together and therefore they have mutually agreed that the marriage to be dissolved.

( 5 ) THE learned Civil Judge, after considering the statements of the parties recorded in the open court, passed the impugned order that no Judgment could be passed before the expiry of 18 months from the date of presentation of the joint application for a decree of divorce by mutual consent under Section 13-B (1) of the Act. In the order the learned Civil Judge, has observed that both the petitioners have examined themselves on 1-6-1990 and 12- 6-1990 and they clearly stated in their evidence that both have psychological differences of opinion and physically they are incapable of enjoying the married life and if the marriage is continued, the lives of both the petitioners will be subjected to untold difficulties and harassment.

( 6 ) THE operative portion of the order of the learned Civil Judge, reads as follows: "no doubt, Section 13-B (1) of the Act provides for passing of a decree for divorce by mutual consent of the husband and wife; but passing of such decree prior to 18 months of the presentation of the petition would be against the intention of the Legislature since the Act has given a period of 18 months from the date of presentation of petition giving an opportunity to both parties to withdraw the petition and therefore only the Court must hold an enquiry and dissolve the marriage between the petitioners and not earlier to it. Therefore, i am not pronouncing the Judgment in this case, as 18 months period contemplated under Section 13-B (2) of the Hindu Marriage act, has not yet reached. Therefore, the Judgment has to be pronounced in this case only after 25-4-1991. Hence, the case is posted after 25-4-1991. It comes in summer vacation. So fix date on re-opening day i. e. , May 1991. "

( 7 ) PETITIONERS being aggrieved by the order of the learned Civil Judge, h

Click Here to Read the rest of this document