1. In matrimonial proceedings between the parties for seeking divorce by the wife under Sec. 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act which was filed on 14.7.1995, on 9.2.96 an application was filed under joint signatures of the spouses through their counsel for obtaining a divorce by mutual consent under Sec. 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The spouses sought a decree of divorce under section 13-B of the Act on the date of presentation of the petition. The matrimonial Court by order dated 12.2.1990, however, held that the decree sought of divorce on mutual consent cannot be passed before expiry of six months' period from the date of joint filing of the petition. The Court held that the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 13-B of the Act require the Court to direct the parties to wait for six months after filing of the petition based on mutual consent.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the wife raised two contentions. Firstly, it is contended that the period of six months can be reckoned by the Court from 14.7.1995 when the divorce petition was filed under section 13 of the Act and not from 9.2.96 when a joint petition under signatures of the spouses were filed for decree based on mutual consent, under Sec. 13-B of the Act. It is submitted that there were facts brought on record to show that the parties were living separately for a period of more than one year and their re-union was impossible for the reasons mentioned in the main petition as also in the application. It is submitted that the period of 6 months fixed under sub-section (2) of Sec. 13-B of the Act is only directory. Reliance is placed on a decision of Andhra Pradesh High Court in K. Omprakash v. K. Nalini (AIR 1986 AP 167), and the decision of the learned Single Judge of this Court in Ramesh Kumar Pandey v. Gourabai (1982) I DMC 216. Reliance is also placed on another Single Bench decision in Dinesh Chandra Goyal v. Sitabai Goyal, (1987) II DMC 452.

3. At the outset, it may be stated that the decision in the case of Ramesh Kumar Pandey (supra) makes no discussion as to whether section 13-B of the Act is directory or mandatory. That case is also distinguishable because there the application for mutual divorce was filed in appeal, and, therefore, the Court did not insist on waiting for a period of six months and passed decree of divorce under Sec. 13-B of the Act.

4. The other case is Dinesh Chandra Goyal (supra). In paragraph 13 of the said judgment, it is specifically stated that the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in K. Omprakash v. K. Nalini (supra) cannot be followed and the learned Single Judge dissented from the view expressed in that case that the provisions of sub-section (2) of Sec. 13-B are not mandatory but only directory. The two decisions aforesaid, therefore are not helpful to the case of the applicant wife that a waiting period of six months for seeking a decree of divorce on mutual consent is not mandatory.

5. In fact, in my considered opinion, the decision of the Supreme Court in Smt. Sureshta Devi v. Omprakash (AIR 1992 SC 1904) is a conclusive verdict that sub-section (2) of section 13-B which provides for waiting period of minimum six months and maximum eighteen months has to be followed by the Court as one of the necessary requirements for passing a decree based on mutual consent. The question that arose before the Supreme Court as also various High Court was as to whether one of the parties to the marriage has a right to withdraw the consent within waiting period. The Supreme Court answered the question as under :-

"From the analysis of the section, it will be apparent that the filing of the petition with mutual consent does not authorise the Court to make a decree for divorce. There is a period of waiting from 6 to 18 months. This interregnum was obviously intended to give time and opportunity to the parties to reflect on their move and seek advice from relations and friends. In this transitional period, one of the parties may ha