The main legal point established in the judgment is that the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act, particularly S.13B and S.23, emphasize the requirement of living separately for a period of one year or more, prohibit collusion between spouses, and impose limitations on seeking a decree of divorce based solely on mutual agreement. The judgment also highlights the inconsistency between the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act and the rules in the Code of Civil Procedure, particularly regarding the acceptance of compromise in divorce proceedings.

Thomas, J.

1. The appellant, a husband, filed a petition in the lower court for a decree of divorce under S.13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short 'the Act') on the ground that his wife has, after solemnisation of the marriage, had voluntary sexual intercourse with another person. The wife (1st respondent) who resisted the petition, however, admitted her marriage with the appellant, but denied all the allegations relating to her character. While the original petition was pending, both the husband and wife filed a joint petition and prayed for a decree of divorce in terms of the said petition. Learned Sub Judge dismissed the original petition as well as the joint petition as per the impugned order. Hence this appeal at the instance of the husband.

2. The original petition was filed by the appellant in the lower court on 18-2-1985. The above mentioned joint petition was filed on 9-4-1987. The averments in the joint petition, inter alia, are that the marriage between the parties was solemnised on 13-5-1969 and three children were born to them, and that due to differences of opinion between the spouses they have been living separately for more than three years and that all possibilities of living together have become foreclosed and hence they have mutually consented to have a decree of divorce. The parties have withdrawn all other contentions raised earlier. It is also stated in the joint petition that monetary claims against the husband were settled as between them and provisions were made regarding custody of the children. The husband and wife were examined in court as witnesses and both of them spoke in support of the averments in the joint petition.

3. In dismissing the joint petition, learned Sub Judge advanced mainly three reasons. First is that since both parties made the motion on the joint petition only after the expiry of eighteen months of the presentation of the original petition, no order could be passed under S.13 B of the Act. The second reason is that since the joint petition was not verified in the manner provided by law the petition is defective and cannot be entertained. The third reason is that even if the joint petition was filed as a compromise petition envisaged in Order XXIII R.3 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short'the Code'), the same cannot be acted on in divorce proceedings under the Act.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant, while contending that none of the aforesaid grounds can be sustained, further pointed out that the joint petition was actually verified by one of the parties. Of course the verification is not strictly in accordance with all the requirements mentioned in Order VI R.15 of the Code. One of the parties has signed below the declaration "all facts stated above are true to my knowledge and information." Under Order VI R.15 of the Code it is enough that the pleading is verified by one of the parties pleading. The requirement in sub-rule (2) that the person verifying shall specify, by reference to the numbered paragraphs of the pleading, what he verifies of his own knowledge and what he verifies upon information received and believed to be true, has not been complied with in the joint petition. However, the preponderance of judicial authorities is in favour of the view that if substantial compliance thereto is made a pleading does not become invalid merely because of some differences in the pleading. (Rivers Steam Navgn. Co. v. Khanta Kumari, AIR 1934 Calcutta 632, Bhikaji Keshao v. Brijlal Nandlal, AIR 1955 S.C. 610). We hold that the verification in the joint petition is in substantial compliance with the legal requirements.

5. S.13 B of the Act says that a petition for dissolution of marriage may be presented to the court by both the parties to a marriage together on the ground that they have been living separately for a period of one year or more, that they have not been able to live together and that they have mutually agreed that the marriage should be dissolved. S