The central legal point established in the judgment is that the satisfaction of the conditions for divorce by mutual consent under Sec.13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act is sufficient for granting the divorce, and any other considerations are immaterial.

ORDER: Aggrieved by the order of the Subordinate Judge, Poonamallee, dated 24.9.2001 made in H.M.O.P. No.58 of 2001 dismissing the joint petition filed for divorce by consent under Sec.13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the petitioners have preferred the above revision under Art.227 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners have filed the said O.P. before the Subordinate Court, Poonamallee under Sec.13-B for divorce by mutual consent. In the said petition, it is state that the petitioners got married on 22.9.1960 at Dindigul as per customary rituals under Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. After the said marriage, they lived together at various places and they last resided at No.5, 2nd Cross Street, Ramappa Nagar, Perungudi, Chennai-600 096 which is the house built and owned by the first petitioner. They have one son and one daughter born out of their wed lock. The son is aged 39 years and is married and is now teaching at Canada in a University and is well settled. Their daughter is aged about 31 years who is also highly qualified and is married to the citizen of U.S.A. and is also settled in U.S.A. It is further stated that the petitioner could not live with each other as serious differences have crept in between them on many personal and others issues which could not be reconciled. Therefore, the second petitioner took up a separate residence at Flat 2A, Palace View Apartments, 88, Santhome High Road, R.A. Puram, Chennai-600 028 and started living from that place since 15.1.2000.

2. Ever since the second petitioner took up separate residence, the petitioners have had deep discussions and deliberations and found that they are not compatible to each other and they cannot continue the marriage any more. The petitioners have been living separately for a period of more than one year prior to the presentation of this petition. The first petitioner is a retired official from the Asian Development Bank at Manila and is a pensioner and the second petitioner is retired from the Tamil Nadu Government service and she is a pensioner. Both of them do not have any liability to maintain each other and they have no claim or obligation to be performed by any one to the other petitioner.

3. In these circumstances they filed a petition under Sec.13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act to dissolve their marriage mutually.

4. After taking me through the various averments made in the joint petition, their statements before the Court and the relevant provision namely Sec.13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, Mr.K.Chandru, learned senior counsel would contend that inasmuch as the petitioners have satisfied and complied with the mandatory provision, the Subordinate Judge ought to have granted divorce by consent as claimed by the petitioners.

5. I have already referred to the necessary averments made in the joint petition filed by both the parties. Apart from the assertion that they were living separately for more than a period of one year prior to the filing of the present petition, they also highlighted that their misunderstanding and difficult to rejoin. They also stated that they are not depending on any one and they are getting sizeable income by way of retirement benefits. Having seen the necessary averments in the petition and their statements as P.W.1 and P.W.2, the learned Subordinate Judge by noticing that both of them chatting with each other prior to their evidence by suspecting their bona fides dismissed the said application. The reasoning in the conclusion of the learned Subordinate Judge cannot be sustained for the following reasons.

6. In this regard it is relevant to note Sec.13-B which enables the parties to seek for divorce by mutual consent.

“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 (Amend

Click Here to Read the rest of this document