( 1 ) THIS appeal is against the Judgment dated 5th July, 1977, passed by the fourth Additional District Judge, Jabalpur, in Civil Suit No. 82-A of 1976. By that Judgment, the trial Court dismissed a joint application made by a married couple for grant of a divorce by mutual consent under Section 13-B of the hindu Marriage Act which has been inserted by the Marriage Laws (Amendment) Act, 1976 (No 68 of 1976 ). The trial Court has held that a divorce by mutual consent in accordance with the newly added Section 13-B alone cannot be granted and it is necessary to prove the existence also of some other ground to enable grant of divorce. This has led to the present appeal also filed jointly by the couple.

( 2 ) THERE is no controversy about the facts.

( 3 ) THE facts pleaded and also (adequately proved by evidence adduced in the trial Court are these: The parties were married at Jabalpur on 19th June, 1975. They lived together only for 22 days thereafter and have, since then, been unable to live together. The joint petition for divorce by mutual consent in accordance with the newly added Section 13-B was filed on 23-11-1976. It was alleged therein that the parties lived together for only 22 days after their marriage at Jabalpur on 19th June, 1975; that they had been living separately since then for a period of more than one year upto the date of petition, that there was no chance of their reconciliation and living together at any time in future and that they had mutually agreed that their marriage should be dissolved in the best interest of both the parties and their families. Thereafter, evidence, was recorded in the trial Court on 2-7-1977. The husband and the wife both examined themselves in the Court and proved these very facts reiterating their desire to obtain the divorce by mutual consent.

( 4 ) AS earlier stated, the trial Court dismissed the petition taking the view that the proof of the ingredient contained in the newly added Section 13-B alone is not sufficient for grant of divorce. The only question is whether this conclusion is correct.

( 5 ) SECTION 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, which was inserted by the Marriage laws (Amendment) Act, 1976 (No. 68 of 1976), in May, 1976, 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 18 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 dissolved with effect from the date of the decree. "

A plain construction of the section shows that there is no ambiguity therein and it was inserted for the purpose of providing a new ground for divorce by mutual consent, as was existing in Section 28 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954. Subsection (1) requires the petition to be based on the ground that both the parties to a marriage 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. These are the only requirements of a petition filed under the provision claiming divorce by mutual consent. Subsection (2) then prov