1. The Revision is directed against the order of the learned Subordinate Judge, Thirupattur made in I.A. No.109 of 2007 in H.M.O.P. No.101 of 2007 dated 19. 2007, under which the learned Subordinate Judge, by considering the said Application filed jointly by both the husband and wife for divorce by mutual consent and also Petition praying for condoning the six month period, directed the matter to be called after six months, viz ., on 20.3.2008.

2. Both the husband and wife, who are the joint petitioners represented by the same counsel have filed the said Application for divorce by mutual consent and it is not in dispute that provisions of Section 13-B(1) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (in short, “the Act”) has been complied with and based on that they were also examined in the Subordinate Court. However, considering the said Application filed by both the parties for condoning the six months’ period, the learned Judge, has in effect refused the same and having taken evidence, posted the case after six months. It is, as against that part of the order of the learned Judge, present Revision is filed jointly by the husband and wife.

3. The points raised on behalf of the parties as it is seen in the affidavit filed in support of the above Petition is that for the past two years, the petitioners have been living separately and there was no chance of re-union. Moreover, the wife, who is a joint petitioner, is aspiring for higher studies in abroad and if she is made to wait for six months’ time, she will be loosing the opportunity to proceed with her higher studies. In view of the same, the petitioners have jointly prayed for waiving of the statutory requirement of six months’ time.

4. While dealing with the aspect of six months’ time, it is relevant to extract the provisions of Section 13-B(1) and (2) of the Act, which reads as under:

“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 di ssolved with effect from the date of the decree.”

As per Section 13-B(1) of the Act, the condition precedent for the husband and wife to file an Application for divorce by mutual consent is that they have been living separately for a period of one year or more and that they have not been able to live together and that they have mutually agreed that the marriage should be dissolved. On the facts and circumstances of the case, it is not in dispute that this provision has been complied with. On the other hand, Section 13-B(2) of the Act says that, after six months of the presentation of the Petition and not later than eighteen months, if the Petition is not withdrawn then the Court has to hear the parties and make enquiry and pass appropriate orders.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the period of six months mentioned under Section 13-B(2) cannot be treated as mandatory. His contention is that when once, under Section 13-B(1) it is made clear that the husband and wife are unable to live together for a period of one yea