( 1 ) RULE. With the consent of the counsel for the parties, the petition is taken up today for final hearing.

( 2 ) THIS petition under Article 227 challenges the order dated 21st December 2004, passed by the Additional District Judge which declined the joint prayer made by the parties to waive the period of six months prescribed under Section 13b (2) of the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter referred to as the `act ).

( 3 ) THE marriage between the petitioner/husband and the respondent/wife, who are both Hindus, was solemnized on 27th April, 2001. The parties separated in November, 2001 and it is not in dispute that since that date the parties have been staying apart.

( 4 ) THE parties had filed the application for divorce by mutual consent on 16th December 2004 under Section 13b (1) of the Act. The impugned order dated 21st December, 2004 declined to waive the statutory period of 6 months prescribed under Section 13 B (2) of the Hindu Marriage Act which reads as under: 13b. Divorce by mutual consent - (1) x x x x x x x x (2) On the motion of both parties made not earlier than six months after the date of the presentation of the petition referred to in sub-section (1) and not later than eighteen months after the said date, if the petition is not withdrawn in the meantime, the court shall, on being satisfied, after hearing the parties and after making such inquiry as it thinks fit, that a marriage has been solemnized and that the averments in the petition are true, pass a decree of divorce declaring the marriage to be dissolved with effect from the date of the decree.

( 5 ) THE first motion was allowed on 18th December, 2004 but on 21st December, 2004 the learned Addl. District Judge, Delhi took the view upon an interpretation of the aforesaid Section 13b (2), that the 6 months period prescribed in the said statute could not be waived as the reason for waiving the statutory period does not disclose a case of undue hardship to either of the parties in waiting for the statutory period of 6 months as this period has been provided in order to prevent the parties from taking decision in haste This is the order under challenge in the present petition.

( 6 ) THE learned counsel for the parties submitted that this is not a case where the marriage was merely 4 months old and it was about 4 years ago the marriage was solemnized and it has been more than 3 years since the parties parted company in November, 2001 and various efforts for reconciliation have not succeeded and accordingly the parties have agreed to divorce by mutual consent.

( 7 ) IN support of the application for divorce seeking waiver of the six months period prescribed in Section 13b (2), reliance was placed on the position of law laid down in the following judgments (a) Andhra Pradesh High Court in K. Omprakash vs. K. Nalini reported as AIR 1986 AP 167 wherein it was held as under: 10. For all the above reasons, we are of the opinion that S. 13b (2) of the Hindu marriage Act should be read as directory only. S. 13b (2), no doubt cautions the courts of its duty to fight the last ditch battle to save the marriage; but when the Court is fully satisfied on the basis of the proved facts, that in the interest of justice of the society and the individuals marriage tie should be put asunder immedaitely, S. 13- b (2) does not impose any fetter on the powers of the court to grant instant decree of divorce. At any rate, we are clearly of the opinion that the time table fixed by S. 13- b (2) does not apply to an appellate court. The great Telugu poet vemana said that the broken iron can be joined together but not broken hearts. Parties have been living apart for long and their wedlock has now virtually become a deadlock. Chances of reunion had completely faded away. In these circumstances, we think it just and proper to grant a decree of divorce straightaway. Accordingly we pass a decree of divorce declaring the marriage between the appellant and the respondent as di