Once consent is given and the second motion is filed for divorce by mutual consent, the withdrawal of consent at a later stage is not permissible, and the decree for divorce should follow.

SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.

( 1 ) ADMIT.

( 2 ) AT request of learned counsel for the parties, the petition is taken up for final disposal. The parties filed a petition for divorce by mutual consent under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The statement of the parties were recorded on 21. 04. 2003 and orders were passed on the first motion. The parties thereafter filed a petition for second motion after the lapse of six months' period of time. This application was duly supported by affidavits of both the parties. The statement of the parties were recorded and thereafter the judgment was reserved and was fixed for pronouncement of orders.

( 3 ) THE two applications were filed by the respondent / wife under Order XXIII rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter to be referred to as, 'the Code') on 15. 09. 2003 and another one under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code on 22. 07. 2004 in the applications, it is stated by the respondent / wife that the petitioner / husband had agreed to make payment of Rs. 70 lakhs towards permanent alimony and to return Istridhan, but the petitioner had failed to keep a compromise. It is not in dispute that there are no such terms recorded in the settlement. The respondent has stated that she was put under pressure and that is why she had signed the application. The trial court came to the conclusion that in view of withdrawal of the consent by the respondent, the divorce decree could not be passed and allowed the applications on 22. 12. 2004 The applications for review filed by the petitioner was dismissed on 10. 09. 2005. Both these orders are impugned by the petitioner in the present proceedings under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

( 4 ) THE limited question raised in the present petition arises from the exercise of jurisdiction by the learned Additional District Judge in allowing the applications of the respondent after the judgment was reserved at the stage of second motion. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to judgment of the Supreme Court in Arjun Singh v. Mohindra Kumar and Ors. , AIR 1964 SC 993 to contend that once a judgment is reserved, nothing more is to be done other than pronouncement of judgment. The hearing of the suit has been completed in its entirety and the suit is adjourned merely for purposes of pronouncing judgment under Order XX Rule 1 of the Code. The said provision reads as under :"order XX judgment AND DECREE 1. Judgment when pronounced. "- (1) The Court, after the case has been heard, shall pronounce judgment in an open Court, either at once, or as soon thereafter as may be practicable and when the judgment is to be pronounced on some future day, the Court shall fix a day for that purpose, of which due notice shall be given to the parties or their pleaders: provided that where the judgment is not pronounced at once, every endeavour shall be made by the Court to pronounce the judgment within thirty days from the date on which the hearing of the case was concluded but, where it is not practicable so to do on the ground of the exceptional and extraordinary circumstances of the case, the Court shall fix a future day for the pronouncement of the judgment, and such day shall not ordinarily be a day beyond sixty days from the date on which the hearing of the case was concluded, and due notice of the day so fixed shall be given to the parties or their pleaders. "

( 5 ) THE Supreme Court had further observed that once a hearing starts, the Code contemplates only two stages in the trial of the suit " (i) where the hearing is adjourned; or (ii) where the hearing is completed. Thus, where hearing is completed, the parties have no further rights or privileges in the matter and it is only for the convenience of the Court that Order XX Rule 1 of the Code permits the judgment to be delivered after an interval after the hearing is completed.

( 6 ) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and I am in agreement with the submissions advanced b