The waiting period under Section 13-B(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act is not mandatory and can be brought down in certain circumstances, such as when a divorce petition is pending for more than six months and all efforts for reconciliation have failed.

( 1 ) NOTICING diametrical opposite views taken by co-ordinate benches learned single Judge has referred the following question to resolve the conflict of views. "whether the Court is required to wait for a period of 6 months u/s. 13-B of the hindu Marriage Act when a joint petition for divorce is filed in a pending case instituted u/s. 13 (1) of the Act and which has been pending for more than 6 months ?"

( 2 ) FACTS lies in a narrow compass. On 26-11-1987, marriage between applicant and respondent was performed as per Hindu rites. Out of wedlock, one daughter-Prachi was born on 24-11-1988. It appears that relations between the parties instead of ripening into mutual love and affection for each other, soured and applicant and respondent were unable to enjoy the bliss of happy married life for long. On 8-1-1996, applicant filed petition u/s. 13 (1) in the Court below seeking divorce and dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty and desertion. Although respondent wife resisted the petition but all efforts made by the Court below for reconciliation were in vain. During the pendency of petition for divorce, on 1-9-1998 both husband and wife made a joint petiion u/s. 13-B of the Act for divorce and dissolution of marriage by mutual consent. Learned Court below placing reliance on decision of single Bench reported in 1997 (1) Jab LJ 32 (Manju Kohli ). by the order impugned dated 1-9-1998 refused to pass the decree for divorce immediately holding that waiting period of six months is mandatory therefore before expiry of six months period as envisaged by sub-section (2) of section 13-B no decree for mutual divorce could be passed.

( 3 ) APPLICANT challenged the order of trial court in the above revision. At the time of hearing, learned single Judge noticed contrary views taken in the decisions of this court reported in (1994) 2 DMC 548 and 1995 (I) MPWN (SN) 2. Learned single Judge also noticed views taken by Delhi and Kerala high Courts reported in AIR 1990 Delhi 146 and AIR 1998 Kerala 97 respectively where waiting for six months in a given set of facts and circumstances was held to be director. In view of conflict of views taken in Manju kohli's case (1997 (1) Jab LJ 32) (supra) and view taken in (1994) 2 DMC 548 and 1995 (1) MPWN (SN) 2, the previously mentioned question was framed, and referred to Hon'ble the Chief Justice for suitable order. Hon'ble the Chief Justice constituted division Bench to hear and decide the matter. That is how the matter is before us.

( 4 ) WE have heard at length Shri R. C. Kochatta, learned counsel for applicant, Shri g. M. Chaphekar and Shri B. L. Pawecha, learned senior counsel with Smt. Anjali jamkhedkar, as Amicus Curiae. Perused the material available on record.

( 5 ) BEFORE we get on to answer the question referred, it would be pertinent to mention that during the pendency of the present revision, trial Court upon expiry of six months, ultimately passed a decree for divorce between the parties. The said decree has been acted upon. In fact, Shri Kochatta learned counsel appearing for applicant submitted that after obtaining the decree for divorce, applicant remarried and is leading meaningful married life. So appears to be the case with respond, as she also despite service did not respondent to notice issued by this Court. In view of the aforesaid, apparently nothing seems to be left to be decided between the parties; however, keeping in view the conflicting views taken by different single Bench of this Court, we have heard arguments to resolve the conflict between the decisions of co ordinate single beach of this Court so as to make the legal position explicit and to iron out the creases.

( 6 ) SHRI Kochatta, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the view taken by learned single Judge in Manju Kohli's case (1997 (1) Jab LJ 32) is based upon the view taken by the Supreme Court in Sureshta devi reported in AIR 1992 SC 1904. The propriety of the aforesaid view itself