Honble KUMAR, CJ.–This review petition has been filed seeking review of the order dated 2.12.1999 whereby an appeal field by the applicant against the decision of the Family Court rejecting an application under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act (in short, referred to hereinafter as `the Act) was dismissed. After hearing counsel for the parties, the review application is allowed. The impugned judgment of this Court which is sought to be reviewed, in our view, suffers from an error apparent on the face of the record and, therefore, the review application is allowed.

(2). We have heard learned counsel for the parties on merit.

(3). Briefly, the facts are that a marriage was solemnised between the parties at Jodhpur on 24.05.1995. Soon thereafter differences arose between the parties and they started living separately. We need not go into further details of the dispute. On 15.1.1999, the parties filed a joint petition under Section 13B of the Act for obtaining a decree of divorce with mutual consent in the family Court at Jodhpur. The Family Court recorded statements of the parties as per the procedure and fixed a date for appearance of the parties which was six months later. On the next date of hearing fixed by the Family Court, the husband did not appear though the wife appeared. It appears from the order of the Family Court dated 27.9.1999 that inspite of a few adjournments he respondent-husband did not appear before the Family Court at the stage of second motion though the wife appeared on each date of hearing. The Family Court has further noted that neither the husband put in appearance nor he sent any information to the Family Court. Rather, in view of this conduct of the husband, the wife moved an application for summoning the husband as a witness to record his statement. This application was rejected by this Family Court on the ground that there was no procedure for recording evidence. The Family Court further declined to issue any notice to the husband to appear in Court on the ground that there was no such procedure. The Family Court mainly proceeded on the basis that it was for the both parties to appear before the Family Court to obtain decree of divorce with mutual consent and in the absence of both the parties decree for divorce could not be passed. The application under Section 13B of the Act was, therefore, dismissed by the Family Court. The present appeal is directed against the said judgments of the Family Court.

(4). Learned council for the appellant (wife) argued that the respondent-husband cannot frustrate the proceedings under Section 13B by such a conduct on his part. It is not disputed that under Section 13B (2) the words used are: ``on the motion of both the parties. It is argued that initial motion had been made by both the parties together when they appeared before the Court and their statements signifying consent for divorce were recorded and next date was fixed by the Court six months afterwards. By his continued absence from the Court at the stage of the second motion the husband was trying the frustrate the proceedings. If the respondent-husband did not stand by his consent for decree of divorce initially given by him, it was open to him to appear before the Court and say that he did not want to consent to the proceedings which could lead to rejection of the application for grant of divorce by mutual consent. But, by non-cooperation i.e. by keeping away from the Court the husband could not be allowed to frustrate the proceedings.

(5). It is well-recognised that the object of second motion after six months of the first motion and a further period of one year being allowed after expiry of the initial period of six months from the date of the first application, is to allow the parties to do some re-thinking because dissolution of a marriage is a serious matter and has serious consequences for the parties and the children, if any from the marriage. The period of 6 to 18 months provided in Section 13B of

Click Here to Read the rest of this document