The main legal point established in the judgment is that the time limit prescribed in Section 14(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, is directory and exceptional circumstances warrant the grant of ex post facto leave.

1. C.R.P. (PD) (MD) No. 2265 of 2012 has been filed to get set aside the fair and decreetal order passed in I.A. No. 184 of 2011 in H.M.O.P. No. 82 of 2011 dated 17.7.2012 by the learned Subordinate Judge, Aruppukottai.

2. C.R.P. (PD) (MD) No. 2266 of 2012 has been filed to get set aside the fair and decreetal order passed in I.A. No. 26 of 2012 in H.M.O.P. No. 82 of 2011 dated 17.7.2012 by the learned Subordinate Judge, Aruppukottai.

3. Heard both sides.

4. The petitioner herein namely G. Ganesh Babu and the respondent herein namely A.P. Arthi, are referred to hereunder as husband and wife respectively.

5. Compendiously and concisely, the relevant facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of these Civil Revision Petitions, would run thus:

(i) The wife filed the H.M.O.P. No. 82 of 2011, during the month of June’ 2011, so to say, within a period of one year from the date of marriage, invoking Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking the following reliefs:

“(a) granting a decree of divorce, dissolving the marriage solemnized between the petitioner and respondent on 18.11.2010;

(b) directing the Respondent to pay the costs of this Petition;”

however, without filing an application to obtain the leave citing the exceptional circumstances.

(ii) The husband after entering appearance, filed the application in I.A. No. 184 of 2011 for rejection of the H.M.O.P. No. 82 of 2011 on the main ground that it was presented within one year from the date of marriage and that too, without any application to obtain leave citing exceptional circumstances. The counter affidavit was filed by the husband.

(iii) Whereupon I.A. No. 26 of 2012 was filed by the wife seeking virtually ex post facto leave under Section 14(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

(iv) The lower Court heard both the applications and passed a common order allowing the application filed by the wife and dismissing the application filed by the husband.

6. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the same, the husband preferred these two Civil Revision Petitions challenging and impugning the orders passed by the lower Court.

7. The nutshell facts absolutely necessary for the disposal of these two Civil Revision Petitions would run thus:

The petitioner and the respondent got married as per Hindu rites and customs on 18.11.2010 at Aruppukottai. Subsequently, the wife during June’ 2011, so to say, within one year, filed the petition seeking divorce.

8. The learned counsel for the husband would put forth and set forth his arguments, the warp and woof of the same, would run thus:

Obtaining the leave of the Court is sine quo non for filing the H.M.O.P., for divorce within one year and it is mandatory and it cannot be simply ignored as directory. The object of Section 14 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, was not taken into consideration by the lower Court. If this sort of practice is allowed, then the sanctity attached to the marriages, would be set at naught. Over and above that, the reasons found stated for obtaining the said ex post facto leave is frivolous and there is nothing exceptional in it. The dowry demand is the pith and marrow of the alleged exceptional circumstances found set out in the affidavit accompanying the petition filed by the wife. Accordingly, the learned counsel for the husband citing various precedents, would pray for allowing the I.A. No. 184 of 2011 and for dismissal of H.M.O.P. No. 82 of 2011.

9. Whereas in a bid to mince meat and torpedo and pulverise the arguments as put forth on the side of the husband, the learned counsel for the wife, would pyramid his arguments, the pith and marrow of them would run thus:

The entire reading of Section 14 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, would connote and denote, project and portray that the obtention of such leave was not mandatory. So far this case is concerned, it is not that wilfully the H.M.O.P. No. 82 of 2011 was filed within one year without obtaining leave and unwittingly alone, the petition for divor