MAHARAJAN, J. :- This appeal is directed against the judgment of Ganesan, J. in C.M.S.A. No. 151 of 1969 and arises under the following circumstances: Lakshmi, who is the appellant before us, married Alagiriswami Chettiar, the respondent herein, in the year 1948. At the time of her marriage Alagiriswami Chettiar had a first wife living. After the second marriage both the wives of Alagirisami Chettiar were living with him under the same roof, and each of them begot children to him. The appellant begot two sons and one daughter by Alagiriswami Chettiar and it is said that the eldest son is now 23 years old, the second son is 18 years old and the daughter is 14 years old. Subsequent to the second marriage, the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, came into force on 18-5-1955. Two of the children of the appellant were born after the commencement of the Act. In 1961, the appellant filed a petition before the Principal Subordinate Judge, Madurai, under Section 13 (2) (i) and Sections 26 and 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act, for a decree for divorce. The sole ground relied upon in the petition was that another wife of the husband married before the commencement of the Act was alive at the time of the solemnisation of the marriage of the appellant. The provocation for filing the petition was, according to the appellant, a deterioration in the relationship between her and her husband in the year 1961. Admittedly, she was living happily with him for 13 years after her marriage and 6 years after the coming into force of the Hindu Marriage Act.

The relief given under Section 13 (2) is an unusual relief intended to meet a peculiar situation. With the coming into operation of the Hindu Marriage Act, bigamous marriages contracted after the Act became null and void under Section 11 read with Section 5 (i) of the Act. There was therefore no need to ask for dissolution of such a marriage, which was ab initio void. But, then there were bigamous marriages which had been contracted prior to the coming into force of the Act and those marriages were valid in the eye of Hindu Law, which recognised polygamy. It was to meet the difficulties of parties to such polygamous or bigamous marriages that the legislature enacted sub-section (2) of S. 13 providing that in case of any such marriage the wife should have the right to seek dissolution of her marriage without proving adultery or cruelty of any of the other matrimonial offences prescribed by the Act. In order to prevent abuse of the relief admissible under the Act, the Legislature

took care to provide in Section 23 that the proof of the available grounds was ipso facto not sufficient to get the relief, but the court must be satisfied among, other things that the petition was not presented or prosecuted in collusion with the respondent, that there was no unnecessary or improper delay in instituting the proceedings and there was no other legal ground why relief should not be granted. Only if the court was so satisfied, but not otherwise, the court shall decree such relief.

As pointed out in Mullah's Hindu Law, 13th Edn. page 691, this salutary provision was not available in the Bombay Hindu Divorce Act, 1947, which enabled the first wife to sue for divorce on the ground that her husband had married again before the coming into operation of that enactment. In a case decided under that enactment (Chandrabhagabai v. Rajaram, ((1955) 57 Bom LR 945) : (AIR) 1956 Bom 91) the first wife had continued to live with the husband for ten years after his second marriage and had children born of him after the second marriage and her petition for divorce was allowed though it was resisted by the husband on the ground of condonation and on the ground that it would be inequitable under the circumstances to grant a decree for divorce. The learned author adds

"The language of the section did not permit of delay being pleaded in bar of the relief. Under the present sub-section it would be competent to the court and even necessary