Manmohan Sarin, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioner/husband aggrieved by the order dated 20. 9. 97 passed by the Additional District Judge in H. M. A. No. 844/97, has preferred TO this Civil Revision Petition. By the impugned order, the learned Additional District Judge did not accede to the request of the petitioner for waiving of the statutory period of six months for filing of the second motion for divorce under Section 13 B (2) of the Hindu Marriage Act and directed the petition to be listed on 21. 3. 98.

( 2 ) THE respondent supports the petitioner in the present Revision Petition. The facts giving rise to the present petition may be briefly noticed: Petitioner was married to the respondent on 9. 11. 97. The marriage ran into rough weather. There were differences between the parties, leading to the respondent filing a complaint with the Dowry Cell under Section 406/498a/34 Indian Penal Code which was registered as FIR No. 531/97 with Police Station, R. K. Puram, New Delhi. The petitioner No. 1 and his family members were constrained to seek anticipatory bail. In the event, the parties have resolved their differences and decided to get the marriage dissolved by decree of divorce by mutual consent.

( 3 ) THE petitioners filed petition bearing HMA 843/97 under Section 13 (B)1 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The learned Additional District Judge registered the petition and recorded the statement of parties. He found that there was no chance of reconciliation in marriage which had irretrievably broken down. Vide order dated 20. 9. 97, petition was taken on record, with liberty to the parties to apply for the second motion in accordance with law. The petitioners immediately preferred TO the second petition also which was registered as H. M. A. No. 844/97. The learned Additional District Judge declined to waive the period of six months. While declining to waive the period he further observed that a sum of Rs. 4,00,000. 00 was to be paid to the respondent/wife in settlement of all her claims. Rs. 2,00,000. 00 had been paid at the time of first motion under Section 13-B. The remaining Rs. 2,00,000. 00 was to be paid in two installments, first one at the time of quashing of the Criminal proceedings and the second at the time of marriage being dissolved by the second motion under Section 13 (B) 2 of Hindu Marriage Act.

( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has relied on Dhanjit Vadra Vs. Smt. Beena Vadra reported at AIR 1990 Delhi 146, a decision of single bench of this court, wherein it was held that the time specified under sub-section (2) of 13 (B) of the Hindu Marriage Act was merely a matter of formality and a decree of divorce by mutual consent could be granted without waiting for the period of six months under Sub-section (2) of Section 13 (B) of the Hindu Marriage Act. The court observed that the time specified under sub-section (2) can be waived if the court is satisfied that the parties have been living separately for a period of one year and they have not been able to live together, and have mutually agreed that the marriage should be dissolved as envisaged by Sub-section (1) of Section 13 (B) of the Act. Learned counsel also relied on K. Om Prakash Vs. K. Nalini reported at AIR 1986 AP 167 holding that the provision 13 (B) (2) was directory and the provision does not fetter the court from passing an instant decree of divorce, if the court is satisfied that the marriage should be snapped immediately. To the same effect, there is another decision of the Karnataka High Court viz. Smt. Roopa Reddy Vs. Prabhakar Reddy reported at AIR 1994 Kar 12. The court again held that Section 13-B though couched in "mandatory" form is "directory" in substance. It was observed "when the intention of the Legislature in introducing S. 13-B (2) is to liberalise and to unlock the wedlock, the Legislature has never intended the period of 6 months mentioned in the Act shall be strictly compiled with. But, in spirit the Section is directory in nature and it ha

Click Here to Read the rest of this document