Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.

1. Marriage under Hindu Law is sacramental. The reforms in Hindu Personal Law have a history of more than 180 years starting from the initiatives taken by Raja Ram Mohan Roy. There were various enactments to reform the law relating to marriages and divorce amongst Hindus. Post independence a Hindu Code was drawn up which resulted in different legislations relating to personal laws. Thus, The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘said Act’) is an Act to amend and codify the law relating to marriages among Hindus.

2. Section 13 of the said Act sets out the grounds on which a marriage can be dissolved by a decree of divorce like cruelty, desertion, insanity, etc. However, for presentation of a petition for divorce, the causes given under Section 13 of the said Act were restricted by a requirement of a minimum period of subsistence of the marriage in view of Section 14 of the said Act.

3. Section 13 of the said Act is based on a fault theory (i.e., the opposite party must have been at fault on account of any of the grounds set out in the said Act and no party can take advantage of its own wrong). Act 68 of 1976 effective 27.5.1976 sought to carve out another line of divorce by bringing in the concept of mutual consent introducing Section 13B. The scheme of this Section provided for a petition to be presented satisfying three grounds:

i. the parties have been living separately for one (1) year or more;

ii. that they have not been able to live together; and

iii. they have mutually agreed that the marriage should be dissolved.

However, even after the Court is required to be satisfied on account of the aforesaid parameters, there is a further hiatus period provided under sub-section (2) of Section 13B of the said Act as the second motion has to be presented not earlier than six (6) months after the date of presentation of the petition referred to in sub-section (1) [not more than eighteen (18) months after the said date] if the earlier petition is not withdrawn in the mean time. On the satisfaction of the Court a decree for dissolution of the marriage can be passed. It is now settled legal position that this period of six (6) months cannot be waived by either the trial court or the High Court and the only exception to the same is the Supreme Court exercising power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India.

4. In the conspectus of the aforesaid background of the legal position we now come to the facts of the present case.

5. The appellant/husband and the respondent/wife were married according to Hindu rites on 19.2.2012 in Rajasthan and after the marriage lived together in Mumbai, the place of residence of the husband. It is the case of the parties that the marriage could not be consummated for reasons the parties do not wish to disclose. The respondent is stated to have left the matrimonial home on 12.4.2012 and the parties are stated to be living separately since then on account of temperamental differences. No rapprochement has been possible despite all endeavours. The appellant is stated to have been staying and working in USA and had come to India only for purposes of getting married and in view of the failure of the marriage was desirous of dissolution of the marriage at the earliest so that he could re-marry and settle down in life by going back to USA.

6. In order to resolve disputes the parties approached the Mediation & Conciliation Centre of the Delhi High Court and a Memorandum of Understanding/Conciliation Agreement was signed on 21.5.2012. Interestingly this was a pre-litigation mediation endeavour in which both the parties joined in. In those proceedings it was agreed that a mutual consent petition should be filed at the earliest without even waiting for the period of one (1) year of separation to elapse.

7. The parties, thus, filed a petition under Section 13B (1) of the said Act and along with that petition filed an application under Section 14 of the said Ac