Procedural irregularity cannot be a ground for interference u/A 227.

1. This revision petition is filed by respondent in Marriage O.P. No. 146 of 1997, on the file of Family Court at Pondicherry.

2. Petition for divorce under Section 13 (1) (iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act was filed by the husband, hereinafter called the respondent, on 29. 1997. In fact, the marriage between petitioner and respondent took place only on 9. 1997, i.e., within a few days of marriage, petition for divorce was filed. Along with that petition, respondent did not file an application seeking leave of the Court to entertain the application. But, such an application was filed on 10. 1997. In that application under Section 14 (1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, he alleged certain reasons and also mentioned the hardship and injury which he will suffer if he has to wait for a period of one year from the date of marriage. Both the main petition for divorce as well as the I.A. for exemption under Section 14(1) of the Act were numbered and summons were also issued to the petitioner by order of Court on 210. 1997.

3. In this revision, petitioner challenges the procedure followed by the Family Court in issuing summons when the application under Section 14(1) of the Act was not ordered, and it is further contended that without grant of leave in I.A., the main petition ought not to have been numbered. It is the further case of the petitioner that when the Statute prohibits entertaining of the petition for divorce for a period of one year from the date of marriage, without grant of leave, respondent is not entitled even to institute the proceeding. It is the further case of petitioner that the bar under Sec.14 (1) of the Act is mandatory.

4. This revision is filed under Art.227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the jurisdiction of the Family Court in entertaining the main petition for divorce.

5. When the matter came for admission, I ordered notice of motion and also granted interim stay of further proceedings before the Family Court. After receipt of notice through Court, respondent also entered appearance through Counsel.

6. Learned counsel for petitioner, at the time of arguments, submitted that the petition for divorce is premature, and it could be cured only by an order of Court when leave is granted, and only after such an Order is passed, respondent can get a cause of action to institute a petition for divorce. It is the contention of learned counsel that such an order must precede the institution, and that is a condition precedent. Otherwise, a petition for divorce can be entertained only after a period of one year.

7. As against the said contention, learned counsel for respondent submitted that the petition under Section 14(1) read with Proviso is only directory and non-compliance of the said Section will not entail dismissal of the petition. If at all leave is required, that defect also can be cured by applying Proviso to Sec.14 (1) of the Act. Learned counsel submitted that institution of petition for divorce is not a bar, and the wording in Section 14(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act only deals with entertaining of the petition which means that the Court shall not enter into the merits of the case till the expiry of one year. Learned counsel further submitted that on a proper reading of Proviso to Sec.14 (1) it will be clear that even the merits could be gone into before the expiry of one year, and if it is ultimately found that divorce a could be granted, that shall take effect only after one year from the date of marriage. Various other provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act were also brought to my notice by learned counsel to contend that institution of such a proceeding is never prohibited under the Hindu Marriage Act. Learned counsel submitted that the purpose of fixing this period of one year is intended only for the purpose of bringing about reconcilement between the parties, if possible. There is no purpose in prohibiting the respondent from instituting the proceeding and asking to wait for one y