Woman in question not deserted woman.

K.A. Swami, C.J.

This writ appeal is preferred against the order dated 19. 1996 passed by the learned single Judge dismissing Writ Petition No. 14133 of 1995.

2. The petitioner sought for issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the Secretary, Selection Committee to admit the petitioner for the I year M.B.B.S. Course, 1995-96 and pass such further or other Orders as may be deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. The learned single Judge has rejected the writ petition on the ground that the petitioner has obtained a decree for divorce by mutual consent and therefore, she is not entitled to claim the benefit as a deserted woman. Hence, the petitioner has come up in appeal.

3. It is true that as per the prospectus issued for the Academic Year 1995-96, under clause 3.5 (vii), certain seats were reserved for the category of deserted women. The appellant applied for entrance examination on 24. 1995 as a deserted woman and applied for admission on 6. 1995 as a deserted woman. The General List of Admission was published on 16. 1995. However, the Special List relating to the reservation was published only on 17. 1995 and long before 17. 1995, on 7. 1995 the petitioner/appellant had obtained divorce by mutual consent under Sec. 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act. The motion for the decree for divorce by mutual consent is required to be made by both the parties not earlier than six months after the date of the presentation of the petition as per Sub-sec.(l) of Sec.13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act. However, from a copy of the petition made by the petitioner alone and the order passed thereon, it is seen that the petition to nullify the marriage was filed under Sec. 13(1) of the Act on 110. 1994 by the petitioner only, on the ground of desertion. However, on 7. 1995, a joint memo appears to have been filed by the petitioner and her husband to treat the petition filed on 110. 1994 as the one filed under Sec. 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act and to grant divorce on mutual consent. This is clear from the order passed by the Principal Sub Judge, Dindigul, on 7. 1995 in M.M.O.P. No. 110 of 1994, which is as follows:

"7. 1995: Joint memo filed to treat this petition for divorce under Sec.13-B of the Act on mutual consent presented and the petition is created under Sec. 13(b). Statement of petitioner recorded. Statement of respondent recorded. I am satisfied that the petitioner and respondent mutually consented for divorce. This petition is held for more than six months. I am satisfied that there is no fraud or collusiveness in the joint memo. Hence, the divorce is granted under Sec. 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 on the ground of mutual consent." Thus, it appears that the parties had agreed for a divorce on mutual consent but that petition under Sec. 13( 1) of the Hindu Marriage Act had come to be filed only to take advantage of the reservation made for the category of deserted woman. It is relevant to notice that a joint memo to treat the petition as the one filed for divorce under Sec. 13(B) was filed on 7. 1995 after the admission list for general category was published on 16. 1995 and it was also published in the newspapers on 16. 1995 and the order of divorce on mutual consent was obtained on 7. 1995 itself. The case of desertion under these circumstances becomes doubtful.

4. A Division Bench of this Court has taken the view in State of Tamil Nadu v. N.Santhanalakshmi, (1995)1 L. W. 750, that after the marriage is dissolved by grant of a decree for divorce, a woman ceases to be a deserted woman. She will not be entitled to the benefit of reservation relating to the Special Category of deserted woman. The aforesaid decision was taken in appeal to the Supreme Court in N.Santhanalakshmi v. State of Tamil Nadu and others, Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.11001 of 1995 and the Special Leave Petition was disposed of on 27. 1995 in the following terms:

"This petition relates to admission to the M.B