Mutual consent for divorce should continue until the divorce decree is passed, and the interpretation given by the High Courts of Kerala, Punjab and Haryana, and Rajasthan was deemed correct, overruling the decisions of the High Courts of Bombay, Delhi, and Madhya Pradesh.

K. Jagannatha Shetty, J.—Special leave granted.

2. This appeal from a decision of the Himachal Pradesh High Court concerns the validity of a decree of dissolution of marriage by mutual con sent, and is said, probably rightly, to raise an important issue. The issue is whether a party to a petition for divorce by mutual consent under section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (Act) can unilaterally withdraw the consent or whether the consent once given is irrevocable.

3. The appellant is the wife of the respondent. They were married on November 21, 1968. They lived together for about six to seven months. Thereafter, it is said that the wife did not stay with the husband except from December 9, 1984 to January 7, 1985. That was pursuant to an order of the court, but it seems that they did not live like husband and wife during that period also. On January 8, 1985, both of them came to Hamirpur. The wife was accompanied by her Counsel, Shri Madan Ratan. After about an hours discussion, they moved a petition under section 13-B for divorce by mutual consent in the District Court at Hamirpur. On January 9, 1985 the court recorded statements of the parties and left the matter there.

4. On January 15, 1985, the wife filed an application in the court, inter alia, stating that her statement dated January 9, 1985 was obtained under pressure and threat of the husband and she was not even allowed to see or meet her relations to consult them before filing the petition for divorce. Nor they were permitted to accompany her to the court. She said that she would not be party to the petition and prayed for its dismissal. The District Judge made certain orders which were taken up in appeal before the High Court and the High Court remanded the matter to the District Judge for fresh disposal. Ultimately, the District Judge dismissed the petition for divorce. But upon appeal the High Court has reversed the order of the District Judge and granted a decree for dissolution of the marriage by mutual consent- The High Court has observed that the spouse who has given consent to a petition for divorce cannot unilaterally with draw the consent and such withdrawal however, would not take away the jurisdiction of the court to dissolve the marriage by mutual consent, if the consent was otherwise free. The High Court also recorded a finding that the wife gave her consent to the petition without any force, fraud or undue influence and therefore she was bound by that consent.

5. Section 13-B was not there in the original Act. It was introduced by the Amending Act 68 of 1976, section 13-B provides: "13-B. Divorce by mutual consent — (1) Subject to the provisions of this Act a petition for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce may be presented to the district court by both the parties to a marriage together, whether such marriage was solemnized before or after the commencement of the Marriage Laws (Amendment) Act, 1976, 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. (2) On the motion of both the parties made not earlier than six months after the date of the presentation of the petition referred to in sub-section (1) and not later than eighteen months after the said date, if the petition is not withdrawn in the meantime, the court shall, on being satisfied, after hearing the parties and after making such inquiry as it thinks fit, that a marriage has been solemnized and that the averments in the petition are true, pass a decree of divorce declaring the marriage to be dissolved with effect from the date of the decree."

6. It is also necessary to read section 23 (1) (bb): "23. Decree in proceedings—(1) In any proceeding under this Act, whether defended or not, if the court is satisfied that— (bb) when a divorce is sought on the ground of mutual consent, such consent has not been obtained by force, fr